Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Antiferromagnetic Order and Magnetic Frustration in the Honeycomb Heavy-Fermion System Ce(Pt$_{1-x}$Pd$_{x}$)$_6$Al$_3$: $^{27}$Al and $^{195}$Pt NMR Studies

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read NMR shows that Pd substitution in CePt6Al3 switches a heavy-fermion metal into an antiferromagnet and moves the honeycomb system toward a quantum critical point.

desk verdict Solid NMR paper: clean data show x=0 stays paramagnetic and Pd doping orders, but the itinerant-to-localized crossover is underdetermined by powder data—and the authors say so themselves. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22532 v1 pith:Q7IFQZZ6 submitted 2025-07-30 cond-mat.str-el

Shunsaku Kitagawa , Fumiya Hori , Kenji Ishida , Ryohei Oishi , Yasuyuki Shimura , Takahiro Onimaru , Toshiro Takabatake This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el PACS 76.60.-k71.27.+a75.50.Ee75.30.Kz
keywords heavy-fermionantiferromagneticorderNMRKnightshiftnuclearspin-latticerelaxationKondoscreeningmagneticfrustrationquantumcriticalpointhoneycomblattice
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 uses $^{27}$Al and $^{195}$Pt nuclear magnetic resonance to establish what happens to the heavy-fermion metal Ce(Pt$_{1-x}$Pd$_x$)$_6$Al$_3$ when palladium replaces some platinum. It finds that the parent compound stays a paramagnetic heavy-fermion metal down to 0.1 K, with a coherence temperature near 15 K. Once Pd is added at $x = 0.1$ or above, long-range antiferromagnetic order appears at $T_N \simeq 3.5$ K and the coherence temperature falls. Comparing $x = 0.1$ with $x = 0.3$ shows the order shifting from itinerant spin-density-wave antiferromagnetism toward localized-moment antiferromagnetism, which the authors read as a movement along the Doniach phase diagram toward weaker Kondo coupling. The result matters because it makes this honeycomb cerium compound a tunable material for studying how Kondo screening competes with magnetic frustration and quantum criticality.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing probe is NMR of the $^{27}$Al and $^{195}$Pt nuclei, measuring the Knight shift $K$, the spectral linewidth, and the nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate $1/T_1T$ as functions of temperature. The Knight shift tracks the local susceptibility and marks the coherence temperature $T_{coh}$, the temperature below which a coherent heavy-fermion state forms; linewidth broadening below $T_N$ signals static staggered internal fields from antiferromagnetic order; and the divergence of $1/T_1T$ at $T_N$ signals critical slowing of magnetic fluctuations, while its drop below $T_N$ signals a gap in the magnetic excitation spectrum. These observations are interpreted with the Doniach phase diagram, the standard heavy-fermion map of magnetic order versus Kondo coupling $J_{cf}$, and the honeycomb Ce network provides the competing nearest-neighbor $J_1$ and next-nearest-neighbor $J_2$ exchange interactions that generate the magnetic frustration suppressing order at $x = 0$.

What would settle it

A neutron diffraction or single-crystal NMR study comparing $x = 0.1$ and $x = 0.3$ samples, measuring ordered moments and magnetic propagation vectors, would settle the matter: if the $x = 0.3$ ordered moment is not larger than the $x = 0.1$ one, or if the two compositions have different magnetic structures, the itinerant-to-localized crossover interpretation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Ce(Pt$_{1-x}$Pd$_x$)$_6$Al$_3$ is a paramagnetic heavy-fermion metal at $x = 0$, while Pd substitution at $x \geq 0.1$ stabilizes long-range antiferromagnetic order at $T_N \simeq 3.5$ K and suppresses the coherence temperature from about 15 K at $x = 0$ until it is undetectable at $x = 0.3$. The NMR data, including Knight shift saturation, linewidth jumps, and a divergence of $1/T_1T$ at $T_N$, indicate that the $x = 0.1$ state retains heavy-fermion coherence just above $T_N$, consistent with itinerant spin-density-wave order with small ordered moments, whereas $x = 0.3$ shows no coherence and broader spectra, indicating more localized $4f$ moments. The authors place this evolution on the Doniach phase diagram as a shift toward the localized side as the Kondo coupling weakens. They argue that the nearly constant $T_N$ with $x$ results from two competing effects: reduced Kondo coupling suppresses ordering while relief of $J_1$-$J_2$ frustration and stronger interlayer coupling enhance it, and they infer a quantum critical point near $x_c \simeq 0$.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the system moves from itinerant to localized antiferromagnetism assumes that the broader NMR spectra at $x = 0.3$ mean larger ordered $4f$ moments, rather than a different magnetic structure or stronger disorder, because the powder measurements cannot resolve the magnetic structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pd substitution is a knob that tunes between itinerant and localized antiferromagnetism in one honeycomb heavy-fermion family, with $T_N$ held nearly constant near 3.5 K.
  • The inferred quantum critical point near $x_c \simeq 0$ implies that small changes in pressure, composition, or field near $x = 0$ should expose quantum-critical behavior in $1/T_1T$ and thermodynamic quantities.
  • The absence of magnetic order in the parent compound down to 0.1 K, despite a Kondo temperature near 10 K, points to magnetic frustration, not Kondo screening alone, as the reason long-range order is suppressed.
  • Because unconventional superconductivity often emerges near magnetic quantum critical points, this system is a candidate platform for searching for frustration-related pairing near $x_c$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: if the near-constant $T_N$ reflects frustration relief compensating for weaker Kondo coupling, then directly tuning the lattice spacing through pressure, strain, or isovalent substitution should move $T_N$ strongly because those controls change $J_1$, $J_2$, and interlayer coupling without reducing $J_{cf}$.
  • My inference: a single-crystal NMR or muon spin rotation measurement could settle whether the broader $x = 0.3$ spectra really mean larger ordered moments; if the magnetic structure changes instead, the itinerant-to-localized reading would require revision.
  • My inference: applying pressure to CePt$_6$Al$_3$, which strengthens Kondo coupling, should drive the system across the same quantum critical point from the ordered side, a prediction testable by resistivity and NMR under pressure.
  • My inference: fine Pd doping just below $x = 0.1$, or pressure tuning, is the natural search window for unconventional superconductivity if the frustration-suppressed quantum critical point can mediate pairing.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports 27Al and 195Pt NMR measurements on polycrystalline Ce(Pt1−xPdx)6Al3 with x = 0, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3. The authors find that for x = 0 the Knight shift, linewidth, and 1/T1T show no magnetic order down to 0.1 K and indicate a paramagnetic heavy-fermion state with Tcoh ≈ 15 K. For x ≥ 0.1, line broadening below ≈3.5 K, together with a peak/divergence-like increase in 1/T1T, is interpreted as the onset of long-range antiferromagnetic order, while Tcoh is progressively suppressed. From the comparison of x = 0.1 and x = 0.3, the authors propose a crossover from itinerant spin-density-wave antiferromagnetism to more localized-moment antiferromagnetism, place the system on the Doniach phase diagram, and suggest a quantum critical point near xc ≈ 0.

Significance. The NMR data set is valuable and internally consistent: it provides microscopic, two-nucleus evidence that the pure compound remains paramagnetic to 0.1 K and that Pd substitution induces magnetic order, and the K–χ analysis gives hyperfine coupling constants for both nuclei. The paper is transparent about the powder-sample limitation in Sec. 3.4. The broader significance of the claimed itinerant-to-localized crossover and the associated Doniach-diagram narrative is, however, not yet established by the NMR data alone, because the key evidence (broader spectra at x = 0.3) cannot uniquely determine ordered-moment size or magnetic structure in a powder with four Pt sites. The paper would be publishable with the crossover claim appropriately reframed as a tentative interpretation, or with additional supporting measurements.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.4, Fig. 6] The central claim of a crossover from itinerant SDW antiferromagnetism at x = 0.1 to localized-moment antiferromagnetism at x = 0.3 rests on (i) the presence or absence of residual heavy-fermion coherence above TN and (ii) the broader 27Al and 195Pt spectra at 1.5 K shown in Fig. 6. In a powder sample with one Al site and four Pt sites, the ordered-state spectral width is set by the local-field distribution, which depends on the magnetic structure, moment direction, transferred hyperfine couplings, and static disorder introduced by Pd substitution; broader spectra are therefore equally compatible with a different magnetic structure or with disorder-broadened internal fields at fixed moment size. The authors acknowledge this directly in Sec. 3.4: 'because of the powder-sample measurements and the presence of multiple crystallographically distinct Pt sites, it is difficult to make definitive conclusions regarding changes in magnetic structure.' Since the crossover is one of the main conclusions and appears in the abstract, the paper should either provide additional microscopic evidence (single-crystal NMR, muSR, or neutron diffraction) or substantially soften the crossover claim and present it explicitly as a tentative interpretation rather than an established result.
  2. [§3.1 and Fig. 5] The definition of Tcoh is the temperature below which the 195Pt Knight shift deviates from Curie–Weiss behavior, but for x = 0.2 the text states that 'no distinct anomaly is observed' in the Knight shift, with only a subtle deviation near the entropy-derived TK ≈ 4.5 K. Nevertheless, a Tcoh value for x = 0.2 is plotted in Fig. 5 and used in the phase-diagram claim of monotonic Tcoh suppression. Please clarify how the x = 0.2 point was determined, apply the stated criterion consistently, or label that point as an estimate/upper limit so that the phase diagram is not stronger than the data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I] The table lists 27Al hyperfine parameters for x = 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 but not for x = 0, even though 27Al NMR data for x = 0 are shown in Figs. 2 and 4. Please clarify whether the x = 0 27Al K–χ data could not be fitted reliably or were omitted for another reason.
  2. [§3.2, Figs. 3(e), 3(f)] The text says 'a divergence of 1/T1T is observed upon approaching TN,' but the figures show a steep increase or peak, not a demonstrated power-law divergence. Please quantify the critical behavior or replace 'divergence' with a more neutral description.
  3. [§3.3] The phrase 'As a results' near the Doniach discussion should be corrected to 'As a result.'
  4. [References] Reference [20] appears to contain a typographical artifact ('Ann. Phys. 321, 2?111 (2006)'); the page span should be corrected.
  5. [Title/affiliations] The affiliation line reads '3Department of Quantum Matter' but the author affiliations appear to be 1 (Kyoto) and 2 (Hiroshima); the affiliation number should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the NMR observables are measured directly, the K-χ analysis extracts calibration parameters rather than predicting the target phase diagram, and the acknowledged powder-sample ambiguity is underdetermination, not input-output equivalence.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental NMR characterization, not a derivation in which a predicted quantity is defined in terms of its own input. The central observations—Knight-shift saturation and 1/T1T suppression for x = 0, linewidth divergence and 1/T1T critical behavior for x >= 0.1, and the systematic shift of these anomalies with Pd content—are directly measured. The K-χ analysis (Eq. 1) fits hyperfine coupling constants and offsets to susceptibility data taken from Ref. 56, but these constants are calibration parameters; they are not used to predict the phase diagram or the ordered moment, and no conclusion depends on the fitted values. The inferred TN (~3.5 K) and Tcoh (~15 K) are read off from measured anomalies, not from the prior bulk data. The itinerant-to-localized crossover is the least constrained claim: the paper itself states in Sec. 3.4 that powder samples and multiple distinct Pt sites prevent definitive conclusions about magnetic-structure changes, and broader spectra could in principle reflect disorder or a different structure rather than a larger ordered 4f moment. That is an underdetermination or uncertainty, not a circular step: no equation or fitted parameter is reused as its own prediction. Several cited references (55–57) are from overlapping author groups and supply bulk susceptibility, specific heat, and resistivity context, but the NMR evidence stands independently of those citations; the crossover conclusion is additionally supported by the measured loss of coherence and larger 1/T1T in x = 0.3, and it is explicitly flagged as difficult to make definitive. Therefore there is no self-definitional, fit-as-prediction, or citation-equivalence circularity.

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

No new physical entities are introduced; heavy-fermion coherence, antiferromagnetic order, and the quantum critical point are established concepts applied to the data. Free parameters are limited to hyperfine calibration constants, Knight-shift offsets, and visually defined characteristic temperatures. The central interpretive assumptions are standard NMR phenomenology and the applicability of the Doniach picture to this specific doped compound.

free parameters (4)
  • 195Pt hyperfine coupling constant Ahf = 0.52 +/- 0.04 (x = 0), 0.44 +/- 0.01 (x = 0.1), 0.34 +/- 0.01 (x = 0.2), 0.34 +/- 0.02 (x = 0.3) T/mu_B
    Slope of the high-temperature K-chi plot in Fig. 4(a) and Table I. Used to compare Pt and Al hyperfine sensitivities, but not required to establish the central magnetic phase diagram.
  • 27Al hyperfine coupling constant Ahf = 0.044 +/- 0.01 (x = 0.1), 0.038 +/- 0.008 (x = 0.2), 0.041 +/- 0.006 (x = 0.3) T/mu_B
    Slope of the high-temperature K-chi plot in Fig. 4(b) and Table I. Calibration constant used mainly to compare Al NMR sensitivity with Pt NMR.
  • Temperature-independent Knight shift K0 = 0.04 to 0.78 percent depending on x and nucleus
    Intercept of the K-chi fits in Table I. Calibration offset, not a parameter of the central physical claim.
  • Coherence temperature Tcoh = ~15 K (x = 0), ~12.5 K (x = 0.1), ~4.5 K (x = 0.2, subtle), not detectable (x = 0.3)
    Defined visually as the temperature where 195K begins to deviate from Curie-Weiss behavior. Used in the phase diagram to show suppression of the Kondo scale with Pd substitution.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption NMR Knight shift is proportional to bulk magnetic susceptibility through a temperature-independent hyperfine coupling (Eq. 1).
    Used in Section 3.1 to derive Ahf and K0 from K-chi plots. The low-temperature change in slope is attributed to magnetic impurities, so only the high-temperature region is fitted.
  • domain assumption 1/T1T measures low-energy magnetic fluctuations, with a critical divergence at a magnetic transition and a gap below TN.
    Used in Section 3.2 to identify TN from the divergence of 1/T1T and to argue that the drop below TN marks the opening of a magnetic excitation gap.
  • domain assumption The Doniach phase diagram framework applies to this chemically substituted heavy-fermion system, with reduced Jcf and reduced frustration together explaining the nearly constant TN.
    Used in Section 3.3 to interpret the flat TN(x) between x = 0.1 and x = 0.3 and to place the system on the localized side of the Doniach diagram as x increases.
  • domain assumption Powder NMR spectra represent the bulk intrinsic magnetic response without overwhelming impurity or preferred-orientation effects.
    The paper notes that magnetic impurities affect low-temperature bulk susceptibility but treats the NMR Knight shift as probing intrinsic electrons. Powder averaging also prevents extraction of the magnetic structure, acknowledged in Section 3.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Antiferromagnetic Order and Magnetic Frustration in the Honeycomb Heavy-Fermion System Ce(Pt$_{1-x}$Pd$_{x}$)$_6$Al$_3$: $^{27}$Al and $^{195}$Pt NMR Studies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q7IFQZZ6

@misc{pith2026250722532,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Antiferromagnetic Order and Magnetic Frustration in the Honeycomb Heavy-Fermion System Ce(Pt$_1-x$Pd$_x$)$_6$Al$_3$: $^27$Al and $^195$Pt NMR Studies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q7IFQZZ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22532}
}
abstract

Heavy-fermion systems with magnetic frustration offer a rich platform for investigating the interplay among Kondo screening, magnetic frustration, and quantum criticality. We report comprehensive $^{27}$Al and $^{195}$Pt nuclear magnetic resonance measurements on polycrystalline Ce(Pt$_{1-x}$Pd$_{x}$)$_6$Al$_3$ ($x = 0$, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3). For $x = 0$, the Knight shift, linewidth, and nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate reveal a paramagnetic heavy-fermion ground state persisting down to 0.1~K, characterized by a coherence temperature $T_{\mathrm{coh}} \simeq 15$~K. Substituting Pd induces antiferromagnetic order at $T_{\mathrm{N}} \simeq 3.5$~K, while suppressing $T_{\mathrm{coh}}$. Comparison between $x = 0.1$ and $x = 0.3$ reveals a crossover from itinerant spin-density-wave antiferromagnetism to more localized-moment antiferromagnetism, indicating a shift toward the localized side of the Doniach phase diagram. These findings establish Ce(Pt$_{1-x}$Pd$_{x}$)$_6$Al$_3$ as a tunable platform to explore the competition between Kondo screening and magnetic frustration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22532 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Color online) Crystal structure of CePt6Al3 drawn by VESTA.50) A box indicates the unit cell. Ce atoms form a two￾dimensional honeycomb network. There are four inequivalent Pt sites, whereas Al occupies a single crystallographic site. We rep￾resent nearest-neighbor interaction J1 and next-nearest-neighbor interaction J2 in the right panel. unconventional pairing and ordered states have been re￾ported.43–49) From th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Color online) Temperature variation of the NMR spectra for Ce(Pt1−xPdx)6Al3 measured at 11.5 MHz. (a)–(d): 195Pt NMR spectra for x = 0, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3, respectively. (e)–(h): 27Al NMR spectra for x = 0, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3, respectively. between J1 and J2. In related compounds where Ce is re￾placed by other rare-earth elements, a variety of magnetic structures have been observed.52–54) The measurements of specific… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Color online) Temperature dependence of the NMR quantities for Ce(Pt1−xPdx)6Al3. (a), (b): Knight shift K for (a) 195Pt and (b) 27Al. The broken curves indicate Curie-Weiss behavior. (c), (d): Linewidth ∆K for (c) 195Pt and (d) 27Al. (e), (f): Nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate 1/T1T for (e) 195Pt and (f) 27Al. The suppression of 1/T1T and the saturation of K at low temperatures signal the formation of heavy-ferm… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Color online) K–χ plot for (a) 195Pt- and (b) 27Al-NMR in Ce(Pt1−xPdx)6Al3. The magnetic susceptibility data were ob￾tained from Ref. 56. The broken lines indicate the guide for the eyes. Avogadro constant, µB is the Bohr magneton, and K0 is the temperature-independen…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: summarizes the Pd concentration dependence of Tcoh and TN determined from the NMR measurements. Tcoh decreases monotonically from approximately 15 K at x = 0 and becomes undetectable at x = 0.3, reflecting a systematic suppression of the Kondo coupling Jcf with increas…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Color online) Comparison of (a) 195Pt-NMR and (b) 27Al-NMR spectra at 1.5 K for x = 0.1 and x = 0.3 of Ce(Pt1−xPdx)6Al3. stitution,56) reduces the two-dimensionality of the elec￾tronic state, which would also act to suppress magnetic frustration. 3.4 Nature of the Ant…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introduction Quantum materials in which several competing in- teractions coexist offer rich grounds for exploring non- trivial emergent phenomena such as quantum criticality and quantum spin-liquid (QSL) states. 1–3) One canonical route to such competition arises when nearest-neighbor (J1) and next-nearest-neighbor ( J2) exchange interac- tions are compara...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    56) The Pd composition x determined by wavelength-dispersive electron-probe microanalysis for the main phase did not deviate from the nominal value x within the resolu- tion

    Experimental Polycrystalline samples of Ce(Pt 1− xPdx)6Al3 with x = 0, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 were synthesized by a conven- tional arc-melting method followed by annealing. 56) The Pd composition x determined by wavelength-dispersive electron-probe microanalysis for the main phase did not deviate from the nominal value x within the resolu- tion. 27Al (nuclear ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The 27Al NMR spectra are relatively sharp and exhibit well-resolved satellite peaks, reflecting the existence of electric field gradients

    Results and Discussion 3.1 Static magnetic properties Figure 2 presents the 195Pt- and 27Al-NMR spectra for Ce(Pt 1− xPdx)6Al3 with x = 0, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 over a wide temperature range. The 27Al NMR spectra are relatively sharp and exhibit well-resolved satellite peaks, reflecting the existence of electric field gradients. In con- trast, the 195Pt NMR spe...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Conclusion We have performed comprehensive 27Al and 195Pt nuclear magnetic resonance measurements on polycrys- talline Ce(Pt 1− xPdx)6Al3 with x = 0, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 to investigate the evolution of magnetic proper- ties as a function of Pd substitution. The Knight shift, linewidth, and nuclear spin–lattice relaxation rate col- lectively reveal that CePt...

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Shimizu, K

    Y. Shimizu, K. Miyagawa, K. Kanoda, M. Maesato, and G. Saito, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 107001 (2003)

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Nakatsuji, Y

    S. Nakatsuji, Y. Nambu, H. Tonomura, O. Sakai, S. Jonas, C. Broholm, H. Tsunetsugu, Y. Qiu, and Y. Maeno, Science 309, 1697 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    P. W. Anderson, Materials Research Bulletin 8, 153 (1973)

    work page 1973

  8. [8]

    Balents, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

    L. Balents, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

    2010

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    58, 59) The mag- netic field-sweep NMR spectra were obtained by record- ing the spin-echo signal observed after a standard π/ 2–π radio frequency pulse sequence at 11.5 MHz

    153 MHz/T) NMR measurements were carried out us- ing a conventional spin-echo technique. 58, 59) The mag- netic field-sweep NMR spectra were obtained by record- ing the spin-echo signal observed after a standard π/ 2–π radio frequency pulse sequence at 11.5 MHz. The mag- netic ...

  2. [10]

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

    2017

  3. [11]

    089) MHz/T]-NMR signal with the Knight shift KCu = 0

    285(12. 089) MHz/T]-NMR signal with the Knight shift KCu = 0 . 2385% from a NMR coil. 60) Knight shift was determined from the peak position of the NMR spec- trum, and the full width at half-maximum (FWHM), ∆ K, was used to characterize the spectral linewidth. The nuclear spin...

  4. [12]

    Obradors, A

    X. Obradors, A. Labarta, A. Isalgu´ e, J. Tejada, J. Rodrig uez, and M. Pernet, Solid State Commun. 65, 189 (1988)

    1988

  5. [13]

    Okamoto, M

    Y. Okamoto, M. Nohara, H. Aruga-Katori, and H. Takagi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 137207 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    Smirnova, M

    O. Smirnova, M. Azuma, N. Kumada, Y. Kusano, M. Mat- suda, Y. Shimakawa, T. Takei, Y. Yonesaki, and N. Kinomura, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131, 8313 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    K. A. Ross, L. Savary, B. D. Gaulin, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. X 1, 021002 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    S. Yan, D. A. Huse, and S. R. White, Science 332, 1173 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    T.-H. Han, J. S. Helton, S. Chu, D. G. Nocera, J. A. Rodrigu ez- Rivera, C. Broholm, and Y. S. Lee, Nature 492, 406 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    Kitagawa, T

    S. Kitagawa, T. Sekiya, S. Araki, T. C. Kobayashi, K. Ishi da, T. Kambe, T. Kimura, N. Nishimoto, K. Kudo, and M. No- hara, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 84, 093701 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    M. Fu, T. Imai, T.-H. Han, and Y. S. Lee, Science 350, 655 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Kawasugi, S

    Y. Kawasugi, S. Yamazaki, A. Pustogow, and N. Tajima, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 92, 065001 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Iwase, J

    F. Iwase, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 92, 074704 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    K. Eto, Y. Okamoto, N. Katayama, H. Ishikawa, K. Kindo, and K. Takenaka, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 92, 094707 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Kogure, M

    S. Kogure, M. Takeda, K. Morita, Y. Fukumoto, M. Saito, and H. Tanaka, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 92, 113703 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Nihongi, T

    K. Nihongi, T. Kida, D. Yamamoto, Y. Narumi, J. Zaccaro, Y. Kousaka, K. Inoue, Y. Uwatoko, K. Kindo, and M. Hagi- wara, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 93, 084704 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    F. Hori, S. Kitagawa, K. Ishida, S. Mizutani, Y. Ohmagari , and T. Onimaru, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 93, 114702 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Kitaev, Ann

    A. Kitaev, Ann. Phys. 321, 2?111 (2006)

    2006

  19. [27]

    Shen, Y.-D

    Y. Shen, Y.-D. Li, H. W o, Y. Li, S. Shen, B. Pan, Q. W ang, H. C. W alker, P. Steffens, M. Boehm, Y. Hao, D. L. Quintero- Castro, L. W. Harriger, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, G. Chen, and J. Zhao, Nature 540, 559 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Banerjee, J

    A. Banerjee, J. Yan, J. Knolle, C. A. Bridges, M. B. Stone, M. D. Lumsden, D. G. Mandrus, D. A. Tennant, R. Moessner, and S. E. Nagler, Science 356, 1055 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

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

    2017

  22. [30]

    Kasahara, T

    Y. Kasahara, T. Ohnishi, Y. Mizukami, O. Tanaka, S. Ma, K. Sugii, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Motome, and Y. Matsuda, Nature 559, 227 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Kitagawa, T

    K. Kitagawa, T. Takayama, Y. Matsumoto, G. Jackeli, and H. Takagi, Nature 554, 341 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    F. Hori, K. Kinjo, S. Kitagawa, K. Ishida, S. Mizutani, R. Ya- mamoto, Y. Ohmagari, and T. Onimaru, Commun. Mater. 4, 55 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Yoshimoto, Y

    S. Yoshimoto, Y. Tabata, T. W aki, and H. Nakamura, J. Phys . Soc. Jpn. 92, 094705 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Yamada and S.-i

    T. Yamada and S.-i. Suga, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 92, 114705 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Saito and C

    H. Saito and C. Hotta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 166701 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    F. Sato, T. Aoyama, S. Kawaguchi, H. Gotou, Y. Imai, and K. Ohgushi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 93, 093601 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Saito, H

    H. Saito, H. Nakai, and C. Hotta, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 93, 034701 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    C. L. Yang, S. Tsuda, K. Umeo, Y. Yamane, T. Onimaru, T. Takabatake, N. Kikugawa, T. Terashima, and S. Uji, Phys. Rev. B 96, 045139 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    K¨ uchler, C

    R. K¨ uchler, C. Stingl, Y. Tokiwa, M. S. Kim, T. Takabatak e, and P. Gegenwart, Phys. Rev. B 96, 241110 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Coleman and A

    P. Coleman and A. H. Nevidomskyy, J. Low Temp. Phys. 161, 182?202 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    K. Guo, J. Ye, S. Guan, and S. Jia, Phys. Rev. B 107, 205151 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Tokiwa, J

    Y. Tokiwa, J. J. Ishikawa, S. Nakatsuji, and P. Gegenwart , Nat. Mater. 13, 356?359 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Steglich, J

    F. Steglich, J. Aarts, C. D. Bredl, W. Lieke, D. Meschede, W. Franz, and H. Sch¨ afer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1892 (1979)

    1979

  36. [44]

    H. R. Ott, H. Rudigier, Z. Fisk, and J. L. Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1595 (1983)

    1983

  37. [45]

    G. R. Stewart, Z. Fisk, J. O. Willis, and J. L. Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 679 (1984)

    1984

  38. [46]

    Pfleiderer, Rev

    C. Pfleiderer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1551 (2009)

    2009

  39. [47]

    Aoki, J.-P

    D. Aoki, J.-P. Brison, J. Flouquet, K. Ishida, G. Knebel, Y. Tokunaga, and Y. Yanase, J. Phys.: Cond. Matt. 34, 243002 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Kitagawa, K

    S. Kitagawa, K. Nakanishi, H. Matsumura, Y. Takahashi, K. Ishida, Y. Tokunaga, H. Sakai, S. Kambe, A. Nakamura, Y. Shimizu, Y. Homma, D. Li, F. Honda, A. Miyake, and D. Aoki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 93, 123701 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Jerome, Science 252, 1509 (1991)

    D. Jerome, Science 252, 1509 (1991)

    1991

  42. [50]

    Takada, H

    K. Takada, H. Sakurai, E. Takayama-Muromachi, F. Izumi, R. A. Dilanian, and T. Sasaki, Nature 422, 53 (2003)

    2003

  43. [51]

    Kitagawa, K

    S. Kitagawa, K. Ishida, T. C. Kobayashi, Y. Matsubayashi , D. Hirai, and Z. Hiroi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 89, 053701 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    B. R. Ortiz, S. M. L. Teicher, Y. Hu, J. L. Zuo, P. M. Sarte, E. C. Schueller, A. M. M. Abeykoon, M. J. Krogstad, S. Rosenkranz, R. Osborn, R. Seshadri, L. Balents, J. He, and S. D. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 247002 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    W ang, Y.-X

    Z. W ang, Y.-X. Jiang, J.-X. Yin, Y. Li, G.-Y. W ang, H.-L. Huang, S. Shao, J. Liu, P. Zhu, N. Shumiya, M. S. Hossain, H. Liu, Y. Shi, J. Duan, X. Li, G. Chang, P. Dai, Z. Ye, G. Xu, Y. W ang, H. Zheng, J. Jia, M. Z. Hasan, and Y. Yao, Phys. Rev. B 104, 075148 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Xiang, Q

    Y. Xiang, Q. Li, Y. Li, W. Xie, H. Yang, Z. W ang, Y. Yao, and H.-H. W en, Nat. Commun. 12, 6727 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Fukushima, K

    K. Fukushima, K. Obata, S. Yamane, Y. Hu, Y. Li, Y. Yao, Z. W ang, Y. Maeno, and S. Yonezawa, Nat. Commun.15, 2888 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 44, 1272 (2011)

    2011

  49. [57]

    Eustermann, F

    F. Eustermann, F. Stegemann, K. Renner, and O. Janka, Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. 643, 1836?1843 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    Oishi, Y

    R. Oishi, Y. Shimura, K. Umeo, T. Onimaru, and T. Taka- batake, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 91, 124706 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Oishi, C

    R. Oishi, C. Ritter, M. M. Koza, D. T. Adroja, T. Onimaru, Y. Shimura, K. Umeo, and T. Takabatake, Phys. Rev. B 110, 144411 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Oishi, Y

    R. Oishi, Y. Shimura, K. Umeo, T. Onimaru, T. Matsumura, M. Tsukagoshi, K. Kurauchi, H. Nitta, and T. Takabatake, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 93, 034707 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    Oishi, Y

    R. Oishi, Y. Ohmagari, Y. Kusanose, Y. Yamane, K. Umeo, Y. Shimura, T. Onimaru, and T. Takabatake, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 89, 104705 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Oishi, K

    R. Oishi, K. Umeo, Y. Shimura, T. Onimaru, A. M. Strydom, and T. Takabatake, Phys. Rev. B 104, 104411 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    Oishi, A

    R. Oishi, A. Miyake, M. Tokunaga, Y. Shimura, K. Umeo, T. Onimaru, and T. Takabatake, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2164, 012033 (2022)

    2022

  56. [64]

    R. K. Harris, E. D. Becker, S. M. Cabral de Menezes, R. Good - fellow, and P. Granger, Pure Appl. Chem. 73, 1795 (2001)

    2001

  57. [65]

    N. J. Stone, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 111–112 , 1 (2016). 7 J. Phys. Soc. Jpn

    2016

  58. [66]

    G. C. Carter, L. H. Bonnet, and D. J. Kahan: Metallic Shifts in NMR (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1977)

    1977

  59. [67]

    Kawasaki, T

    S. Kawasaki, T. Oka, A. Sorime, Y. Kogame, K. Uemoto, K. Matano, J. Guo, S. Cai, L. Sun, J. L. Sarrao, J. D. Thomp- son, and G.-q. Zheng, Commun. Phys. 3, 148 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    Doniach, Physica B+C 91, 231 (1977)

    S. Doniach, Physica B+C 91, 231 (1977)

    1977

  61. [69]

    H. v. L¨ ohneysen, J. Phys.: Cond. Matt. 8, 9689 (1996)

    1996

  62. [70]

    Kitagawa, S

    S. Kitagawa, S. Araki, T. C. Kobayashi, and Y. Ikeda, J. Ph ys. Soc. Jpn. 89, 063702 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    Nakai, T

    Y. Nakai, T. Iye, S. Kitagawa, K. Ishida, H. Ikeda, S. Kasahara, H. Shishido, T. Shibauchi, Y. Matsuda, and T. Terashima, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 107003 (2010)

    2010

  64. [72]

    Kitagawa, T

    S. Kitagawa, T. Kawamura, K. Ishida, Y. Mizukami, S. Kasa - hara, T. Shibauchi, T. Terashima, and Y. Matsuda, Phys. Rev. B 100, 060503(R) (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    Ishida, S

    K. Ishida, S. Matsuzaki, M. Manago, T. Hattori, S. Kitaga wa, M. Hirata, T. Sasaki, and D. Aoki, Phys. Rev. B 104, 144505 (2021)

    2021

  66. [74]

    Goryo, M

    J. Goryo, M. H. Fischer, and M. Sigrist, Phys. Rev. B 86, 100507 (2012)

    2012

  67. [75]

    W atanabe, H

    H. W atanabe, H. Seo, and S. Yunoki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 86, 033703 (2017)

    2017

  68. [76]

    Tazai, Y

    R. Tazai, Y. Yamakawa, S. Onari, and H. Kontani, Sci. Adv. 8, eabl4108 (2022). 8

    2022

Pith tools

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