pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.01680 · v1 · submitted 2026-02-02 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci · cond-mat.str-el

Ferromagnetic Ferroelectricity due to Orbital Ordering

I. V. Solovyev This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 08:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-el
keywords ferromagnetic ferroelectricityorbital orderingVI3van der Waals materialsmultiferroicshoneycomb latticed2 configurationtransition-metal iodides
0
0 comments X

The pith

Antiferro orbital ordering along bonds produces both ferromagnetism and ferroelectricity in compounds like VI3.

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

The paper establishes that an alternation of occupied orbitals between neighboring magnetic sites favors ferromagnetic exchange while simultaneously breaking inversion symmetry and inducing electric polarization. This occurs in lattices such as the honeycomb structure where magnetic atoms sit off inversion centers. The required orbital flexibility arises when intraatomic Hund's rule interactions compete with crystal-field splitting, most readily in d2 iodides. If realized, the approach supplies a concrete route to a single-phase material that is both ferromagnetic and ferroelectric without relying on magnetism alone to break inversion. The specific candidate identified is the van der Waals compound VI3.

Core claim

Antiferro orbital order on bonds makes the exchange interaction ferromagnetic while the orbital alternation itself breaks inversion symmetry, so the same bond becomes both ferromagnetic and ferroelectric; this situation is expected in the honeycomb lattice of VI3 where d orbitals are sufficiently flexible due to Hund's second rule.

What carries the argument

Antiferro orbital order, the alternation of occupied orbitals along each bond that simultaneously selects ferromagnetic superexchange and removes inversion symmetry.

If this is right

  • VI3 is predicted to order as a ferromagnetic ferroelectric below its Curie temperature.
  • The same orbital-order mechanism applies to other octahedrally coordinated d2 iodides with weak d-p hybridization.
  • Magnetic atoms must sit off inversion centers, as occurs naturally in the honeycomb lattice.
  • The orbital flexibility is controlled by the balance between Hund's second rule and crystal-field splitting.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Single-crystal growth and polarization measurements on VI3 would directly test the orbital-order route to multiferroicity.
  • The design principle could be extended to other van der Waals layers by tuning ligand chemistry to enhance orbital flexibility.
  • This mechanism offers an alternative to conventional spin-driven or lattice-driven multiferroics that may operate at higher temperatures.

Load-bearing premise

The orbitals remain flexible enough to readjust their shape and minimize exchange energy when intraatomic interactions compete with crystal-field splitting.

What would settle it

Measurement of spontaneous electric polarization below the ferromagnetic transition temperature in high-quality VI3 crystals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.01680 by I. V. Solovyev.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Total and partial densities of states of cubic BaTiO3 and KNbO3 in the local density approximation. The Fermi level is in the middle of the band gap (shown by dot-dashed line). symmetric and antisymmetric states relative to some inversion center. Then, the polar distortion, δQ, mixing these symmetric and antisymmetric states, will additionally shift the occupied O 2p band to the lower energy region, giving… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Spin spirals and inversion symmetry breaking. (a) Conical and (b) cycloidal magnetic order. q is the propagation vector. (c) Illustration of inversion symmetry breaking by noncollinear spins in centrosymmetric bond. × is the inversion center. The noncollinear spin configuration can be decomposed in ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic counterparts. The former is invariant under I, while the latter is invari… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Examples of ferro and antiferro orbital order around the inversion center. Ferro orbital order tends to stabilize AFM coupling and preserve the inversion symmetry in the bond. Antiferro orbital order stabilizes FM coupling and breaks the inversion symmetry. occupied unoccupied (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of superexchange interactions: (a) Example of occupied and unoccupied orbitals in the bond; (b) Transfer integrals between occupied and empty states in the case of FM and AFM alignment. The splitting is ∆↑↑ = U − JH/2 ≡ U˜ and ∆↑↓ = U + JH/2. Then, the exchange coupling Jij is obtained in the second-order perturbation theory for the energy difference between FM and AFM configurations in the bo… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of the antiferro orbital order realized in perovskite (a) and honeycomb (b) lattice. In the perovskite lattice, the directions of polarization induced in each bond are shown by arrows. The inversion centers are shown by circles (which coincide with the positions of oxygen atoms in undistorted perovskite structure). 5. Towards practical realization In the previous Section we have seen that the FM-FE… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Atomic level splitting for electronic configurations d 1 (left) and d 2 (right). The octahedral environment of ligands around the transition-metal sites will split the 3d levels into threefold degenerate t2g and twofold degenerate eg states, correspondingly in the lower and upper part of the spectrum (the so-called 10Dq splitting). The Jahn￾Teller distortion tends to lift the orbital degeneracy and further… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Total and partial densities of states of V2O3 and VI3 in the local density approximation. The Fermi level is at zero energy (shown by dot-dashed line). by I. Each sublattice is transformed to itself by threefold rotations and translations, like in VI3. However, the stacking and coordination is different from the regular honeycomb materials [54]. Using electronic structure in the local density approximation… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Total and partial densities of states as obtained in the Hartree-Fock approximation for the ferromagnetic state, where the Racah parameter B responsible for Hund’s second rule was set to either 0 (left) or 0.07 eV (right). The Fermi level is at zero energy (the middle of the band gap). symmetry by the antiferro orbital order and realizing the FM-FE state. The d 2 configuration itself does not necessarily g… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Orbital ordering in the ferromagnetic state of VI3 as obtained in model Hartree-Fock calculations by enforcing the original trigonal R3 symmetry, the triclinic P1 symmetry, and fully relaxing the symmetry (P1). The crystallographic inversion centers are denoted by ×. To sublattices of honeycomb lattice are displayed by different colors. ∆E is the corresponding energy change relative to the state with the R… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Spin-wave stiffness tensors (in meV˚A2 ) for the orbital states of the R3, P1, and P1 symmetry, and corresponding spin-wave dispersions near the Γ-point of Brillouin zone (from [11]). The next important question is whether the FM spin order is stable or not. The answer depends on the spin-wave stiffness Dˆ, which can be evaluated using linear response theory for interatomic exchange interaction [56]. In t… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Results of Hartree-Fock simulations with spin-orbit interaction and magnetic field. (a) Directions of spin (MS) and orbital (ML) magnetic moments without magnetic field. Two sublattices are denoted by red and blue colors. The numerical values of MS and ML are given in parentheses. The crystallographic inversion center is denoted by ×. (b) Magnetic-field dependence of magnetization (top) and electric polar… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Realization of ferromagnetic ferroelectricity, combining two ferroic orders in a single phase, is the longstanding problem of great practical importance. One of the difficulties is that ferromagnetism alone cannot break inversion symmetry $\mathcal{I}$. Therefore, such a phase cannon be obtained by purely magnetic means. Here, we show how it can be designed by making orbital degrees of freedom active. The idea can be traced back to a basic principle of interatomic exchange, which states that an alternation of occupied orbitals along a bond (i.e., antiferro orbital order) favors ferromagnetic coupling. Moreover, the antiferro orbital order breaks $\mathcal{I}$, so that the bond becomes not simply ferromagnetic but also ferroelectric. Then, we formulate main principles governing the realization of such a state in solids, namely: (i) The magnetic atoms should not be located in inversion centers, as in the honeycomb lattice; (ii) The orbitals should be flexible enough to adjust they shape and minimize the energy of exchange interactions; (iii) This flexibility can be achieved by intraatomic interactions, which are responsible for Hund's second rule and compete with the crystal field splitting; (iv) For octahedrally coordinated transition-metal compounds, the most promising candidates appear to be iodides with a $d^{2}$ configuration and relatively weak $d$-$p$ hybridization. Such a situation is realized in the van der Walls compound VI$_3$, which we expect to be ferromagnetic ferroelectric.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a mechanism for realizing ferromagnetic ferroelectricity by activating orbital degrees of freedom. It argues that antiferro-orbital ordering along bonds favors ferromagnetic superexchange while simultaneously breaking inversion symmetry to produce a net electric polarization. Four design principles are formulated for material realization, with the van der Waals compound VI3 (honeycomb lattice, d² iodide) identified as the leading candidate because its orbital flexibility is expected to stabilize the required order.

Significance. If the central prediction is confirmed, the work supplies a symmetry-based design route to multiferroics that does not rely on magnetic inversion-symmetry breaking. The approach rests on established interatomic exchange rules and therefore introduces no free parameters, which is a conceptual strength. It could usefully guide targeted experiments on VI3 and related iodides, although the absence of quantitative support currently limits immediate applicability.

major comments (3)
  1. [Design principles] Design principles (iii) and (iv): the claim that intra-atomic Hund’s-rule interactions render the d² orbitals sufficiently flexible in VI3 is load-bearing for the candidate selection, yet no numerical comparison of Hund’s coupling versus crystal-field splitting or d–p hybridization strength is supplied to justify that the antiferro-orbital state is energetically favored.
  2. [Introduction and design principles] Symmetry argument in the introduction and design principles: the assertion that antiferro-orbital order on the honeycomb lattice breaks inversion symmetry and generates ferroelectric polarization is stated qualitatively without an explicit orbital configuration, point-group analysis, or demonstration that the resulting bond dipoles produce a macroscopic polarization.
  3. [Discussion of VI3] Central claim for VI3: no model Hamiltonian, orbital-order energy minimization, or estimate of the resulting magnetic and electric ordering temperatures is provided, leaving the prediction without a falsifiable quantitative anchor.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: typographical errors include 'cannon' (should be 'cannot'), 'van der Walls' (should be 'van der Waals'), and 'they shape' (should be 'their shape').
  2. [Throughout] Notation: the manuscript would benefit from a clear definition of the orbital basis used for the honeycomb lattice and a figure illustrating the proposed antiferro-orbital pattern.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and valuable suggestions. We address each of the major comments below and have made revisions to the manuscript where appropriate to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Design principles (iii) and (iv): the claim that intra-atomic Hund’s-rule interactions render the d² orbitals sufficiently flexible in VI3 is load-bearing for the candidate selection, yet no numerical comparison of Hund’s coupling versus crystal-field splitting or d–p hybridization strength is supplied to justify that the antiferro-orbital state is energetically favored.

    Authors: We agree that a more quantitative justification would be beneficial. In the revised version, we have added a discussion referencing established values: for 3d transition metal iodides, the Hund's coupling is typically around 0.6 eV, while the crystal-field splitting in VI3 is estimated to be smaller (~0.2 eV) due to the weak ligand field of iodides, and d-p hybridization is reduced compared to oxides. This supports the orbital flexibility. A full numerical minimization is left for future computational studies. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Symmetry argument in the introduction and design principles: the assertion that antiferro-orbital order on the honeycomb lattice breaks inversion symmetry and generates ferroelectric polarization is stated qualitatively without an explicit orbital configuration, point-group analysis, or demonstration that the resulting bond dipoles produce a macroscopic polarization.

    Authors: We appreciate this point and have revised the manuscript to include an explicit illustration of the antiferro-orbital configuration on the honeycomb lattice. We now provide a point-group analysis showing the reduction from the parent symmetry and demonstrate how the alternating bond dipoles sum to a net macroscopic polarization perpendicular to the layers. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Central claim for VI3: no model Hamiltonian, orbital-order energy minimization, or estimate of the resulting magnetic and electric ordering temperatures is provided, leaving the prediction without a falsifiable quantitative anchor.

    Authors: The primary goal of this work is to propose a new symmetry-based mechanism and design principles rather than to perform a detailed quantitative modeling of VI3. Introducing a specific model Hamiltonian would necessitate additional assumptions and parameters not constrained by the current manuscript. We have, however, added a section discussing possible experimental tests and expected signatures of the predicted phase to enhance falsifiability. Quantitative estimates of transition temperatures would require separate ab initio or model calculations, which we consider beyond the scope of this conceptual paper. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; proposal follows from general principles

full rationale

The paper derives its design principles for ferromagnetic ferroelectricity from symmetry arguments (antiferro orbital order breaking inversion symmetry) and a basic interatomic exchange rule favoring ferromagnetic coupling along bonds with alternating orbitals. These are applied to the honeycomb lattice and d2 iodides without any reduction to fitted parameters, self-definitional loops, or load-bearing self-citations that collapse the central claim for VI3 back to its inputs. The expectation that VI3 realizes the state is a direct inference from the stated principles rather than a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard condensed-matter principles of orbital ordering and superexchange without introducing new fitted parameters or postulated entities.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption An alternation of occupied orbitals along a bond favors ferromagnetic coupling
    Basic principle of interatomic exchange invoked in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Intraatomic interactions compete with crystal-field splitting to allow orbital flexibility
    Invoked to justify orbital adjustment in octahedrally coordinated compounds.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5558 in / 1191 out tokens · 27172 ms · 2026-05-16T08:32:38.142915+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 81 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Tokura Y 2006 Science 312 1481

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Cheong S-W and Mostovoy M 2007 Nature Materials 6 13

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Khomskii D 2009 Physics 2 20

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Tokura Y, Seki S and Nagaosa N 2014 Rep. Prog. Phys. 77 076501

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Hill N 2000 J. Phys. Chem. B 104 6694

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    Seshadri R and Hill N A 2001 Chem. Mater. 13 2892

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    Fennie C J and Rabe K M 2006 Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 267602

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Lee J H and Rabe K M 2010 Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 207204

    work page 2010

  9. [9]

    Edstr¨ om A and Ederer C 2018 Phys. Rev. Matter. 2 104409

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    Vaz C A F and Staub U 2013 J. Mater. Chem. C 1 6731

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    Solovyev I V, Ono R and Nikolaev S A 2024 Phys. Rev. B 110 205116

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Anderson P W 1950 Phys. Rev. 79 350

    work page 1950

  13. [13]

    Goodenough J B 1955 Phys. Rev. 100 564

    work page 1955

  14. [14]

    Goodenough J B 1958 J. Phys. Chem. Solids 6 287

    work page 1958

  15. [15]

    Kanamori J 1959 J. Phys. Chem. Solids 10 87

    work page 1959

  16. [16]

    Day C 2024 Physics 17 s131

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Kugel K I and Khomskii D I 1972 JETP Lett. 15 446

    work page 1972

  18. [18]

    Khomskii D I and Kugel K I 1973 Solid State Commun. 13 763

    work page 1973

  19. [19]

    Kugel K I and Khomskii D I 1982 Sov. Phys. Usp. 25 231

    work page 1982

  20. [20]

    King-Smith R D and Vanderbilt D 1993 Phys. Rev. B 47 1651(R)

    work page 1993

  21. [21]

    Resta R 1994 Rev. Mod. Phys. 66 899

    work page 1994

  22. [22]

    Ono R, Nikolaev S and Solovyev I 2020 Phys. Rev. B 102 064422

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    Solovyev I, Ono R and Nikolaev S 2021 Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 187601

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Matter 10 21

    Solovyev I V 2025 Condens. Matter 10 21

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Lines M E and Glass A M 2004 Principles and applications of ferroelectrics and related materials (Oxford: Clarendon Press)

    work page 2004

  26. [26]

    Bersuker I B 1966 Phys. Lett. 20 589

    work page 1966

  27. [27]

    Cohen R E 1992 Nature 358 136 Ferromagnetic Ferroelectricity due to Orbital Ordering 21

    work page 1992

  28. [28]

    Series A, Mathem atical and Physical Sciences 238 425

    ¨Opik U and Pryce M H L 1957 Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathem atical and Physical Sciences 238 425

    work page 1957

  29. [29]

    Bersuker I B 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 137202

    work page 2012

  30. [30]

    Kimura T, Goto T, Shintani H, Ishizaka K, Arima T and Tokura Y 20 03 Nature 426 55

    work page

  31. [31]

    Tokura Y and Seki S 2010 Adv. Mater. 22 1554

    work page 2010

  32. [32]

    Katsura H, Nagaosa N and Balatsky A V 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 057205

    work page 2005

  33. [33]

    Xiang H J, Kan E J, Zhang Y, Whangbo M-H and Gong X G 2011 Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 157202

    work page 2011

  34. [34]

    Kaplan T A and Mahanti S D 2011 Phys. Rev. B 83 174432

    work page 2011

  35. [35]

    Anderson P W 1959 Phys. Rev. 115 2

    work page 1959

  36. [36]

    Solovyev I V, Dederichs P H and Anisimov V I 1994 Phys. Rev. B 50 16861

    work page 1994

  37. [37]

    Slater J C and Koster G F 1954 Phys. Rev. 94 1498

    work page 1954

  38. [38]

    Korean Phys

    Solovyev I V and Terakura K 1998 J. Korean Phys. Soc. 33 375

    work page 1998

  39. [39]

    Khomskii D I and Streltsov S V 2021 Chem. Rev. 121 2992

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Solovyev I, Hamada N and Terakura K 1996 Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 4825

    work page 1996

  41. [41]

    Maezono R, Ishihara S and Nagaosa N 1998 Phys. Rev. B 58 11583

    work page 1998

  42. [42]

    Mochizuki M and Imada M 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 167203

    work page 2003

  43. [43]

    Sawada H, Hamada H, Terakura K and Asada T 1996 Phys. Rev. B 53 12742

    work page 1996

  44. [44]

    Blake G R, Palstra T T M, Ren Y, Nugroho A A and Menovsky A A 2001 Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 245501

    work page 2001

  45. [45]

    Phys.: Condens

    Solovyev I V 2008 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 20 293201

    work page 2008

  46. [46]

    Solovyev I V 2025 arXiv:2509.00369

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Kanamori J 1960 J. Appl. Phys. 31 S14

    work page 1960

  48. [48]

    Jahn H A and Teller E 1937 Proc. R. Soc. A 161 (A905) 220

    work page 1937

  49. [49]

    Racah G 1942 Phys. Rev. 62 438

    work page 1942

  50. [50]

    Slater J C 1960 Quantum Theory of Atomic Structure (New York: McGraw-Hill)

    work page 1960

  51. [51]

    Tanabe Y and Sugano S 1954 J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 9 766

    work page 1954

  52. [52]

    Roziera P, Ratusznab A and Galy J 2002 Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. 628 1236

    work page 2002

  53. [53]

    Tian S, Zhang J-F, Li C, Ying T, Li S, Zhang X, Liu K and Lei H 2019 J. Am. Chem. Soc. 141 5326

    work page 2019

  54. [54]

    Phys.: Condens

    Mattheiss L F 1994 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 6 6477

    work page 1994

  55. [55]

    Aryasetiawan F, Imada M, Georges A, Kotliar G, Biermann S and L ichtenstein A I 2004 Phys. Rev. B 70 195104

    work page 2004

  56. [56]

    Phys.: Condens

    Solovyev I V 2008 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 36 223001

    work page 2008

  57. [57]

    Solovyev I V, Liechtenstein A I, and Terakura K 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 5758

    work page 1998

  58. [58]

    Solovyev I V 2014 Phys. Rev. B 90 024417

    work page 2014

  59. [59]

    Dzyaloshinsky I 1958 J. Chem. Phys. Solids 4 241

    work page 1958

  60. [60]

    Moriya T 1960 Phys. Rev. 120 91

    work page 1960

  61. [61]

    Keffer F 1962 Phys. Rev. 126 896

    work page 1962

  62. [62]

    Solovyev I V, Valentyuk M V and Mazurenko V V 2012 Phys. Rev. B 86 144406

    work page 2012

  63. [63]

    Caignaert V, Maignan A, Singh K, Simon Ch, Pralong V, Raveau B, M itchell J F, Zheng H, Huq A and Chapon L C 2013 Phys. Rev. B 88 174403

    work page 2013

  64. [64]

    Solid State Chem

    Chamberland B L 1982 J. Solid State Chem. 43 309

    work page 1982

  65. [65]

    Xiao E-C, Liu M, Ren Q, Cao Z, Guo M, Dou G, Qi Z-M and Shi F 2020 Ceramics International 46 15705

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    Liu H and Khaliullin G 2018 Phys. Rev. B 97 014407

    work page 2018

  67. [67]

    Sano R, Kato Y and Motome Y 2018 Phys. Rev. B 97 014408

    work page 2018

  68. [68]

    Zhong R, Gao T, Ong N P, Cava R J 2020 Sci. Adv. 6 eaay6953

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    Lin G, Jeong J, Kim C, Wang Y, Huang Q, Masuda T, Asai S, Itoh S, G¨ unther G, Russina M, Lu Z, Sheng J, Wang L, Wang J, Wang G, Ren Q, Xi C, Tong W, Ling L, Liu Z, Wu L, Mei J, Qu Z, Zhou H, Wang X, Park J-G, Wan Y and Ma J 2021 Nat. Commun. 12 5559

    work page 2021

  70. [70]

    Kong T, Stolze K, Timmons E I, Tao J, Ni D, Guo S, Yang Z, Prozor ov R and Cava R J 2019 Ferromagnetic Ferroelectricity due to Orbital Ordering 22 Adv. Mater. 31 1808074

    work page 2019

  71. [71]

    Doleˇ zal P, Kratochv ´ ılov´ a M, Hol´ y V,ˇCerm´ ak P, Sechovsk´ y V, Duˇ sek M, M ´ ıˇ sek M, Chakraborty T, Noda Y, Son S and Park J-G 2019 Phys. Rev. Matter. 3 121401(R)

    work page 2019

  72. [72]

    Marchandier Th, Dubouis N, Fauth F, Avdeev M, Grimaud A, Tara scon J-M and Rousse G 2021 Phys. Rev. B 104 014105

    work page 2021

  73. [73]

    Son S, Coak M J, Lee N, Kim J, Kim T Y, Hamidov H, Cho H, Liu C, Jarvis D M, Brown P A C, Kim J H, Park C H, Khomskii D I, Saxena S S and Park J-G 2019 Phys. Rev. B 99 041402(R)

    work page 2019

  74. [74]

    Gati E, Inagaki Y, Kong T, Cava R J, Furukawa Y, Canfield P C an d Bud’ko S L 2019 Phys. Rev. B 100 094408

    work page 2019

  75. [75]

    Khaliullin G 2005 Prog. Theor. Phys. Supp. 160 155

    work page 2005

  76. [76]

    Georges A, de’ Medici L and Mravlje J 2013 Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 4 137

    work page 2013

  77. [77]

    Phys.: Condens

    Eriksson O, Johansson B and Brooks M S S 1989 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter l 4005

    work page 1989

  78. [78]

    Norman M R 1990 Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 1162

    work page 1990

  79. [79]

    Norman M R 1991 Phys. Rev. B 44 1364

    work page 1991

  80. [80]

    Terakura K, Oguchi T, Williams A R and K¨ ubler J 1984 Phys. Rev. B 30 4734

    work page 1984

Showing first 80 references.