Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 73 references

Crystallography-driven molecularization of a two-dimensional spin-$3/2$ magnet

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the spin-3/2 compound Na2Mn3O7 avoids magnetic order because its low-symmetry crystal structure partitions the spins into nearly isolated antiferromagnetic hexagons, whose frustrated weak couplings melt the fragile cla

desk verdict A credible and near-quantitative explanation of Na2Mn3O7's two thermodynamic scales via a crystallography-enforced exchange hierarchy; the quantum-disordered ground state is plausible but rests on a symmetrized pf-FRG model. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.22005 v3 pith:NDDB5A2N submitted 2026-02-25 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Hari Borutta , Tobias Müller , Ronny Thomale , Harald O. Jeschke , Yasir Iqbal This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci MSC 82B2082D40 PACS 75.10.Jm75.50.Ee75.40.Mg
keywords Na2Mn3O7maple-leaflatticespin-3/2magnetfrustratedmagnetismexchangehierarchyquantumparamagnetmolecularizationpseudofermionfunctionalrenormalizationgroup
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that Na2Mn3O7, a layered spin-3/2 compound with strong antiferromagnetic exchange, stays magnetically disordered not because of randomness but because its triclinic crystal structure enforces an exchange hierarchy. Three dominant antiferromagnetic couplings nearly isolate hexagonal plaquettes, while weaker, mostly ferromagnetic inter-hexagon couplings frustrate long-range coherence. This 'molecularization' produces two well-separated thermodynamic crossover scales: correlations form first inside hexagons, and only at much lower temperatures do frustrated inter-hexagon links attempt to order. Classical analysis finds an extremely shallow incommensurate spiral, and quantum calculations show that fluctuations melt this fragile order entirely, leaving a cluster-dominated quantum paramagnet. If correct, this establishes crystallographic inequivalence as a materials-level mechanism for realizing quantum-disordered states even in large-spin magnets.

What carries the argument

The central object is the exchange hierarchy extracted from the triclinic crystal structure: three dominant antiferromagnetic nearest-neighbor couplings (J1–J3 ≈ 87–107 K) that almost isolate hexagonal plaquettes, standing against weaker, mostly ferromagnetic inter-hexagon couplings (J4–J9 ≈ −4 to −18 K). The paper calls the resulting regime 'molecularization' — the reorganization of spin degrees of freedom into emergent hexagonal molecular units. This hierarchy does the explanatory work: it sets the two-stage buildup of correlations, produces a shallow and anisotropic classical energy landscape with an incipient incommensurate spiral, and makes the system unusually susceptible to quantum fl

What would settle it

A single-crystal neutron diffraction experiment on Na2Mn3O7 searching for resolution-limited Bragg peaks at the predicted incommensurate wavevector k0 ≈ (0.5003, 0.0425, 0) Å⁻¹ would falsify the quantum-disordered ground state if such peaks appear at low temperature. Alternatively, a converged pf-FRG or tensor-network calculation on the full unsymmetrized J1–J9 Hamiltonian showing a susceptibility flow breakdown at finite cutoff would indicate that the 21% anisotropy among the dominant exchanges restores magnetic order.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that Na2Mn3O7's failure to order despite sizable antiferromagnetic exchange originates from a crystallography-driven molecularization of the magnetic degrees of freedom. Using density-functional-theory energy mapping on the experimentally resolved triclinic structure, the authors derive a Heisenberg Hamiltonian with a pronounced hierarchy: three dominant antiferromagnetic nearest-neighbor couplings (J1–J3, about 87–107 K) form nearly isolated hexagonal plaquettes, while several weaker and mostly ferromagnetic inter-hexagon couplings frustrate coherence. Exact diagonalization of an isolated spin-3/2 hexagon shows that two crossover scales are

Load-bearing premise

The quantum-disordered ground state is established on a symmetrized Hamiltonian in which the nine nearest-neighbor couplings are averaged into three classes, even though the three dominant exchanges differ by about 21%; if that spread among the dominant couplings reopens an ordering instability in the full model, the zero-temperature disorder claim would be weakened, even though the two-scale thermodynamic picture could survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The ab initio Hamiltonian reproduces the two experimentally observed thermodynamic scales (susceptibility maximum near 110–120 K and specific-heat enhancement near 60–70 K), so the model provides a quantitative route to predicting thermodynamic response in cluster-dominated magnets.
  • If the ground state is a cluster-dominated quantum paramagnet, single-crystal neutron scattering should show broad diffuse intensity maxima at the symmetry-related wavevectors ±k0+G without resolution-limited Bragg peaks, and local probes such as muon spin rotation or NMR should see persistent dynamics with no static internal fields.
  • Pressure or uniaxial strain, which should predominantly affect the weak inter-hexagon couplings, is predicted to strongly modify the low-temperature crossover while leaving the high-temperature susceptibility maximum largely unchanged — a testable fingerprint of the hierarchy.
  • The mechanism implies that low crystallographic symmetry can act as a deliberate design principle: other large-spin layered magnets with inequivalent exchange paths may harbor molecularized quantum paramagnets rather than conventional order.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The molecularization mechanism suggests a general search strategy: screen low-symmetry layered magnets for a large ratio between a few dominant intra-cluster couplings and many weaker inter-cluster couplings; such 'structurally plaquettized' compounds may show cluster quantum paramagnetism well beyond the spin-1/2 limit.
  • Because the paper's phase diagram places Na2Mn3O7 near competing ordered phases, tuning the weak inter-hexagon couplings (via pressure, strain, or chemical substitution) could drive the system across a quantum phase transition into the incommensurate spiral or into a valence-bond ordered state, offering a controlled laboratory test of the hierarchy.
  • The paper explicitly leaves open non-dipolar symmetry breaking (valence-bond or spin-nematic order) beyond its two-spin correlator analysis; computing four-spin correlators or applying tensor-network methods to the full unsymmetrized model could reveal hidden order inside the disordered regime.
  • The sharp distinction drawn between a 'weakly coupled molecular magnet' and a 'molecularized lattice' — where the network actively renormalizes cluster scales — offers a lens for re-examining other cluster-based magnets for signatures of network-driven scale shifts rather than simple cluster spectra.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a microscopic explanation for the absence of magnetic order and the two thermodynamic crossover scales in the layered spin-3/2 compound Na2Mn3O7. From DFT+U energy mapping on the triclinic crystal structure, the authors derive a Heisenberg model with a pronounced exchange hierarchy: three nearest-neighbor antiferromagnetic couplings J1–J3 ≈ 87–107 K form nearly isolated hexagons, while six weaker, mostly ferromagnetic couplings J4–J9 ≈ −4 to −18 K and further-neighbor terms frustrate inter-hexagon coherence. Classical Luttinger–Tisza analysis yields a unique but shallow incommensurate spiral. Classical Monte Carlo of the full Hamiltonian reproduces the experimental susceptibility maximum near 116 K and a specific-heat scale near 70 K, with only incipient order at very low temperature. Exact diagonalization of a single S=3/2 hexagon gives two intrinsic crossover scales, though at higher temperatures than experiment. Pseudofermion functional renormalization group on a symmetrized version of the model shows no dipolar ordering instability and rapidly decaying inter-hexagon correlations, supporting a cluster-dominated quantum paramagnet. The authors conclude that crystallographic inequivalence is a materials-level route to molecularized, quantum-disordered magnets beyond the spin-1/2 paradigm.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper identifies a new mechanism—crystallography-driven exchange hierarchy—for stabilizing quantum-disordered behavior in large-spin two-dimensional magnets. The manuscript has clear strengths: a fully specified exchange model (Table I), a transparent classical reference analysis, large-scale cMC with careful thermalization, ED benchmarks, and pf-FRG with convergence checks. The prediction of broad diffuse neutron-scattering peaks at specific incommensurate wavevectors is falsifiable. The quantitative comparison with experiment is, however, weakened by the fitting of U and the RPA parameter to the experimental Curie–Weiss temperature, and the zero-temperature quantum-disorder result is computed on a symmetrized Hamiltonian. These concerns are addressable and do not undermine the thermodynamic two-scale scenario, but they need to be confronted explicitly before the central claims can be regarded as fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [pf-FRG section, Eqs. (7)–(8), Fig. 4, Supplementary Fig. S2] The zero-temperature claim that quantum fluctuations melt the classical order rests on pf-FRG calculations of the symmetrized nearest-neighbor model with J_h=(J1+J2+J3)/3, J_t=(J4+J7+J8)/3, and J_d=(J5+J6+J9)/3. The anisotropy δ_h≈0.21 defined in Eqs. (7)–(8) is comparable to the spread of the coupling sets shown in Fig. 4, yet the nine gray points vary only J_t and J_d while keeping J_h fixed. The δ_h direction is therefore not bracketed by the phase diagram. Since cMC of the full, unsymmetrized Table I Hamiltonian develops long-range order at low T (Supplementary Fig. S1), the possibility remains that the 21% spread among J1–J3, or the neglected heterogeneity among J4–J9, moves the system across a phase boundary in Fig. 4. I request either pf-FRG on the full unsymmetrized Hamiltonian, or a systematic scan over the anisotropy parameters (e.g., the eight corners of the (J1,J2,J3) cube at
  2. [Methods/DFT, Fig. 1(a), Fig. 2] The exchange scale is fixed by choosing U=0.94 eV so that the Hamiltonian reproduces the experimental Curie–Weiss temperature θCW=−152 K. The subsequent agreement of the cMC susceptibility maximum (near 116 K) and specific-heat scale (near 70 K) with experiment is therefore partly a consequence of this fitting, not an independent prediction. The predictive content lies in dimensionless ratios such as Tχ,max/|θCW| and TC/|θCW| and in the line shapes. The manuscript should state this explicitly and estimate how the predicted crossover temperatures vary over the range of U shown in Fig. 1(a), where the hierarchy is said to be robust. Without this, the phrase 'quantitative agreement' overstates the level of validation.
  3. [Cluster thermodynamics, Eq. (6)] The RPA dressing parameter λ≈403 K is matched to the same experimental θCW used to fix U. The statement that 'the experimentally relevant positions emerge only once the hexagons are embedded' is supported by the full-lattice cMC results, but the RPA demonstration is partly circular. The text already notes that the RPA is illustrative; I recommend either removing Eq. (6) from the main text or clearly labeling it as a schematic, so that the quantitative case rests entirely on the cMC calculation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table I] J27–J30 are listed with an en-dash instead of numerical values. Please clarify whether these couplings are zero, not determined, or neglected, and whether their omission affects the hierarchy.
  2. [Eq. (6)] There is a typo: 'an Random Phase Approximation' should be 'a Random Phase Approximation'.
  3. [ED results, p.5] The notation Tχ9max and TC9max is not defined. Please define these as the temperatures of the susceptibility and specific-heat maxima of the isolated hexagon.
  4. [Supplementary Note 1] The supplementary bibliography uses its own numbering [1]–[9], which duplicates the main-text reference list. Renumber to avoid confusion.
  5. [Abstract and Ref. [37]] The abstract states 'no evident disorder', but Ref. [37] reports 'crystal stacking disorder' in this material. Please clarify whether stacking disorder is relevant to the experimental absence of long-range order and how the present translation-invariant model relates to that sample property.
  6. [Fig. 2(a)] The caption refers to 'dashed gray vertical markers', but the figure description in the text mentions markers. Please ensure the markers and curves are clearly identified in the figure itself.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The DFT+U exchange scale is fitted to the experimental Curie-Weiss temperature, so the quantitative agreement of the crossover temperatures is partly inherited from the fit; the two-scale structure and the quantum-disorder claim retain independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Methods (Density functional theory and exchange extraction); Results (Thermodynamics: hexagon scale vs network scale)]
    "The value U=0.94 eV was selected because it yields a Curie–Weiss temperature consistent with experiment, θCW =−152 K [36]. ... The magnetic susceptibility exhibits a broad maximum at T≈116 K [see Fig. 2(b)], in quantitative agreement with experiment [36, 37], confirming that the dominant exchange scale and the buildup of short-range correlations are captured already at the classical level."

    U is the fit parameter: it is chosen so that the DFT+U exchanges reproduce the experimental Curie-Weiss temperature, fixing the overall exchange scale. The susceptibility maximum near 116 K and the specific-heat feature near 70 K scale with the dominant exchange J_h, so their quantitative agreement with the experimental crossover temperatures is substantially inherited from that fit rather than being a parameter-free first-principles prediction. What is not fitted—and remains independent—is the two-peak/two-scale structure, the J1-J3 >> J4-J9 hierarchy, and the absence of pf-FRG flow breakdown in the symmetrized model.

full rationale

The central mechanistic claims—hexagon-first thermodynamics and a quantum-disordered ground state—are not definitionally circular: the two-scale structure is derived from ED of an isolated hexagon and from cMC/pf-FRG of a Hamiltonian with a fitted overall scale, and the disorder conclusion rests on the pf-FRG flow not breaking down in the symmetrized model. The main circularity concern is the use of U=0.94 eV, selected to reproduce the experimental theta_CW, to then quote the susceptibility and specific-heat positions as quantitative agreement. This is a genuine but partial fitted-input issue: it sets the energy scale, so the absolute positions of the thermodynamic maxima are not fully independent predictions. The RPA lambda=403 K is also matched to the same theta_CW, but the paper explicitly labels it 'illustrative (not quantitative)' and says the quantitative renormalization is established by cMC, so I do not count it as a separate load-bearing circular step. The pf-FRG symmetrization J_h=(J1+J2+J3)/3 is an approximation/robustness concern rather than circularity: the full cMC orders at low T (Supplementary Fig. S1), so the disorder conclusion could be weakened by the neglected 21% anisotropy, but the pf-FRG result is computed from the symmetrized Hamiltonian and not derived from the conclusion. Self-citations appear (e.g., Ref. 14 exact ground state, Ref. 16 TMFT) but are not load-bearing for the Na2Mn3O7-specific claim, and the cited results are external published calculations. Overall, the independent content—two separated scales, exchange hierarchy, and a candidate cluster-dominated quantum paramagnet—keeps this from being a high-score circularity, but the fitted scale makes the quantitative thermodynamic agreement partially inherited, giving a score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a DFT-derived Hamiltonian whose absolute scale is set by fitting U to θCW, on a specific crystal-structure choice, on neglected interlayer/longer-range couplings, and on pf-FRG truncation plus symmetrization. No new physical particles, fields, or conserved quantities are introduced; 'molecularization' is an interpretive label for the computed exchange hierarchy and correlation structure.

free parameters (2)
  • Hubbard U (DFT+U on-site Coulomb interaction) = 0.94 eV
    U is varied with JH = 0.76 eV fixed; U = 0.94 eV is selected so the extracted Heisenberg couplings yield the experimental Curie–Weiss temperature θCW = −152 K (Ref. [36]). This sets the overall exchange scale controlling both crossover temperatures.
  • RPA dressing parameter λ = 403 K
    In Eq. (6), λ is matched to the high-temperature Curie–Weiss slope θCW = −152 K. The authors label the RPA expression as illustrative rather than quantitative, but it is still a parameter fitted to experimental data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The DFT+U total-energy mapping Hamiltonian in Table I correctly describes the magnetism of Na2Mn3O7.
    The entire analysis uses the exchange couplings from Table I; the reliability of DFT+U energy mapping for this material is assumed rather than benchmarked against independent data beyond θCW.
  • domain assumption The Chang–Jansen (1985) triclinic structure is the relevant low-temperature structure.
    Supplementary Note 1 rejects the 2001 and 2019 structures based on DFT total energy differences; all exchange paths derive from this structural choice.
  • domain assumption Neglected interlayer couplings J22–J24, J31–J36, and unlisted longer-range in-plane couplings do not qualitatively alter the physics.
    Table I caption and main text state these are disregarded; no quantitative bound or calculation is shown to justify their irrelevance to the central claims.
  • ad hoc to paper Symmetrizing J1–J9 into averaged J_h, J_t, J_d preserves the quantum ground-state physics despite δ_h ≈ 0.21.
    The pf-FRG calculation is run on the symmetrized model, not the full heterogeneous Hamiltonian; this is a modeling choice specific to the paper.
  • domain assumption Absence of pf-FRG flow breakdown is a valid diagnosis of no dipolar long-range order within the two-particle truncation.
    The methods section explains the breakdown criterion; the authors explicitly note that non-dipolar symmetry breaking (valence-bond or nematic order) is not excluded by this calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Crystallography-driven molecularization of a two-dimensional spin-$3/2$ magnet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NDDB5A2N

@misc{pith2026260222005,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Crystallography-driven molecularization of a two-dimensional spin-$3/2$ magnet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NDDB5A2N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.22005}
}
abstract

Large-spin two-dimensional magnets are generally expected to develop conventional long-range order once the dominant exchange scale becomes appreciable. The layered spin-$3/2$ maple-leaf compound Na$_2$Mn$_3$O$_7$ defies this expectation: despite sizable antiferromagnetic interactions and no evident disorder, it exhibits no magnetic ordering and displays two well-separated thermodynamic crossover scales. We show that this behavior originates from a crystallography-driven molecularization of the magnetic degrees of freedom. The low-symmetry structure partitions the Mn sublattice into inequivalent exchange pathways, generating a pronounced hierarchy that nearly isolates antiferromagnetic hexagons. Magnetic correlations therefore develop in two stages: first within individual hexagons at a scale set by the dominant exchange, and only at much lower temperatures do frustrated inter-hexagon couplings attempt to establish coherence across the lattice. While isolated hexagons reproduce the two-step thermodynamic structure, the experimentally relevant temperature scales emerge only once the hexagons are embedded in the frustrated two-dimensional network. The resulting quantum ground state is magnetically disordered, characterized by strong intra-hexagon correlations and rapidly decaying inter-hexagon correlations. These results identify crystallographic inequivalence as a materials-level mechanism for stabilizing molecularized and quantum-disordered states even in large-spin two-dimensional magnets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.22005 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Hamiltonian of Na [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Bulk thermodynamic properties obtained from cMC simulations of the full Heisenberg model given in Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Equal-time spin correlations of the model given in Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Phase boundaries of the symmetrized nearest-neighbor maple-leaf model and the location of Na [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Real-space correlations from the pf-FRG analy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

    2010

  2. [2]

    Richter, J

    J. Richter, J. Schulenburg, and A. Honecker, Quan- tum magnetism in two dimensions: From semi-classical N´ eel order to magnetic disorder, inQuantum Magnetism, edited by U. Schollw¨ ock, J. Richter, D. J. J. Farnell, and R. F. Bishop (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 2004) pp. 85–153

    2004

  3. [3]

    B. S. Shastry and B. Sutherland, Exact ground state of a quantum mechanical antiferromagnet, Physica B+C108, 1069 (1981)

    1981

  4. [4]

    J. Y. Lee, Y.-Z. You, S. Sachdev, and A. Vishwanath, Sig- natures of a deconfined phase transition on the Shastry- Sutherland lattice: Applications to quantum critical SrCu2(BO3)2, Phys. Rev. X9, 041037 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    J. L. Jim´ enez, S. P. G. Crone, E. Fogh, M. E. Za- yed, R. Lortz, E. Pomjakushina, K. Conder, A. M. L¨ auchli, L. Weber, S. Wessel, A. Honecker, B. Normand, C. R¨ uegg, P. Corboz, H. M. Rønnow, and F. Mila, A quantum magnetic analogue to the critical point of wa- ter, Nature592, 370 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Z. Shi, S. Dissanayake, P. Corboz, W. Steinhardt, D. Graf, D. M. Silevitch, H. A. Dabkowska, T. F. Rosenbaum, F. Mila, and S. Haravifard, Discovery of quantum phases in the Shastry-Sutherland compound SrCu2(BO3)2 under extreme conditions of field and pres- sure, Nat. Commun.13, 2301 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Liu, X.-T

    W.-Y. Liu, X.-T. Zhang, Z. Wang, S.-S. Gong, W.-Q. Chen, and Z.-C. Gu, Quantum Criticality with Emergent Symmetry in the Extended Shastry-Sutherland Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 026502 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    X. Qian, R. Lv, J. Y. Lee, and M. Qin, From the Shastry- Sutherland model to theJ 1−J2 Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B111, L241113 (2025)

    2025

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Betts, A new two-dimensional lattice of coordination number five, Proc

    D. Betts, A new two-dimensional lattice of coordination number five, Proc. N. S. Inst. Sci.40, 95 (1995)

    1995

  2. [10]

    P. L. Ebert, Y. Iqbal, and A. Wietek, Competing Para- magnetic Phases in the Maple-Leaf Heisenberg Antifer- romagnet (2026), arXiv:2601.05308 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2026

  3. [11]

    Gresista, D

    L. Gresista, D. Kiese, S. Trebst, and Y. Iqbal, Uncon- ventional orders in the maple-leaf ferro-antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model, Z. Naturforsch. A doi:10.1515/zna- 2025-0376 (2026)

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    Schmoll, J

    P. Schmoll, J. Naumann, E. L. Weerda, J. Eisert, and Y. Iqbal, Bathing in a sea of candidate quantum spin liquids: From the gapless ruby to the gapped maple-leaf lattice (2025), arXiv:2407.07145 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gemb´ e, L

    M. Gemb´ e, L. Gresista, H.-J. Schmidt, C. Hickey, Y. Iqbal, and S. Trebst, Noncoplanar orders and quantum disordered states in maple-leaf antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B110, 085151 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Ghosh, T

    P. Ghosh, T. M¨ uller, and R. Thomale, Another exact ground state of a two-dimensional quantum antiferro- magnet, Phys. Rev. B105, L180412 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Ghosh, J

    P. Ghosh, J. Seufert, T. M¨ uller, F. Mila, and R. Thomale, Maple leaf antiferromagnet in a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B108, L060406 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Ghosh, Triplon analysis of magnetic disorder and or- der in maple-leaf Heisenberg magnet, J

    P. Ghosh, Triplon analysis of magnetic disorder and or- der in maple-leaf Heisenberg magnet, J. Phys. Condens. Matter.36, 455803 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Nyckees, P

    S. Nyckees, P. Ghosh, and F. Mila, Tensor-network study of the ground state of maple-leaf Heisenberg antiferro- magnet (2025), arXiv:2512.20466 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025

  10. [18]

    J. Beck, J. Bodky, J. Motruk, T. M¨ uller, R. Thomale, and P. Ghosh,J d Heisenberg model on the maple-leaf lattice: Neural quantum states and density-matrix renormaliza- tion group, Phys. Rev. B109, 184422 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Hutak, Thermodynamics of thes= 1 2 maple-leaf Heisenberg antiferromagnet, Phys

    T. Hutak, Thermodynamics of thes= 1 2 maple-leaf Heisenberg antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B112, 104405 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    S. J. Mills, A. R. Kampf, A. G. Christy, R. M. Housley, G. R. Rossman, R. E. Reynolds, and J. Marty, Bluebellite and mojaveite, two new minerals from the central Mojave Desert, California, USA, Mineral. Mag.78, 1325–1340 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    A. R. Kampf, S. J. Mills, R. M. Housley, and J. Marty, Lead-tellurium oxysalts from Otto Moun- tain near Baker, California: VIII. fuettererite, Pb3Cu2+ 6 Te6+O6(OH)7Cl5, a new mineral with double spangolite-type sheets, Am. Mineral.98, 506 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    F. Olmi, C. Sabelli, and R. Trosti-Ferroni, The crystal structure of sabelliite, Eur. J. Mineral.7, 1331 (1995)

    1995

  15. [23]

    S. L. Penfield, On spangolite, a new copper mineral, Am. J. Sci.39, 370 (1890)

  16. [24]

    H. A. Miers, Spangolite, a Remarkable Cornish Mineral, Nature48, 426 (1893)

  17. [25]

    Frondel, Crystallography of spangolite, Am

    C. Frondel, Crystallography of spangolite, Am. Mineral. 34, 181 (1949)

    1949

  18. [26]

    F. C. Hawthorne, M. Kimata, and R. K. Eby, The crystal structure of spangolite, a complex copper sulfate sheet mineral, Am. Mineral.78, 649 (1993)

    1993

  19. [27]

    Fennell, J

    T. Fennell, J. O. Piatek, R. A. Stephenson, G. J. Nilsen, and H. M. Rønnow, Spangolite: an s = 1/2 maple leaf lattice antiferromagnet?, J. Phys. Condens. Matter23, 164201 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Aguilar-Maldonado, R

    C. Aguilar-Maldonado, R. Feyerherm, K. Prokeˇ s, L. Keller, and B. Lake, Structure and magnetic prop- erties of the maple leaf antiferromagnet Ho 3ScO6, Phys. Rev. B111, 094439 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Haraguchi, A

    Y. Haraguchi, A. Matsuo, K. Kindo, and Z. Hiroi, Frus- trated magnetism of the maple-leaf-lattice antiferromag- net MgMn3O7 ·3H 2O, Phys. Rev. B98, 064412 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Inosov, Quantum magnetism in minerals, Adv

    D. Inosov, Quantum magnetism in minerals, Adv. Phys. 67, 149 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Norman, Copper tellurium oxides – a playground for magnetism, J

    M. Norman, Copper tellurium oxides – a playground for magnetism, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.452, 507 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Haraguchi, A

    Y. Haraguchi, A. Matsuo, K. Kindo, and Z. Hiroi, Quan- tum antiferromagnet bluebellite comprising a maple-leaf lattice made of spin-1/2 Cu 2+ ions, Phys. Rev. B104, 174439 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Ghosh, T

    P. Ghosh, T. M¨ uller, Y. Iqbal, R. Thomale, and H. O. Jeschke, Effective spin-1 breathing kagome hamiltonian induced by the exchange hierarchy in the maple leaf min- eral bluebellite, Phys. Rev. B110, 094406 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Schmoll, H

    P. Schmoll, H. O. Jeschke, and Y. Iqbal, Tensor net- work analysis of the maple-leaf antiferromagnet spango- lite, Commun. Mater.6, 178 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Ghosh, Chiral crossroads in Ho 3ScO6: Competing in- teractions on the maple-leaf lattice, Phys

    P. Ghosh, Chiral crossroads in Ho 3ScO6: Competing in- teractions on the maple-leaf lattice, Phys. Rev. B111, 224431 (2025). 11

    2025

  28. [36]

    Venkatesh, B

    C. Venkatesh, B. Bandyopadhyay, A. Midya, K. Ma- halingam, V. Ganesan, and P. Mandal, Magnetic proper- ties of the one-dimensionalS= 3 2 Heisenberg antiferro- magnetic spin-chain compound Na 2Mn3O7, Phys. Rev. B101, 184429 (2020)

    2020

  29. [39]

    E. A. Raekelboom, A. L. Hector, J. Owen, G. Vitins, and M. T. Weller, Syntheses, structures, and preliminary electrochemistry of the layered lithium and sodium man- ganese(IV) oxides, A 2Mn3O7, Chem. Mater.13, 4618 (2001)

    2001

  30. [40]

    B. Song, M. Tang, E. Hu, O. J. Borkiewicz, K. M. Wiaderek, Y. Zhang, N. D. Phillip, X. Liu, Z. Shadike, C. Li, L. Song, Y.-Y. Hu, M. Chi, G. M. Veith, X.-Q. Yang, J. Liu, J. Nanda, K. Page, and A. Huq, Under- standing the low-voltage hysteresis of anionic redox in Na2Mn3O7, Ch...

    2019

  31. [41]

    Jeschke, I

    H. Jeschke, I. Opahle, H. Kandpal, R. Valent ´ ı, H. Das, T. Saha-Dasgupta, O. Janson, H. Rosner, A. Br¨ uhl, B. Wolf, M. Lang, J. Richter, S. Hu, X. Wang, R. Pe- ters, T. Pruschke, and A. Honecker, Multistep approach to microscopic models for frustrated quantum magnets: The c...

    2011

  32. [42]

    H. O. Jeschke, F. Salvat-Pujol, and R. Valent ´ ı, First- principles determination of Heisenberg Hamiltonian parameters for the spin- 1 2 kagome antiferromagnet ZnCu3(OH)6Cl2, Phys. Rev. B88, 075106 (2013)

    2013

  33. [43]

    Ghosh, Y

    P. Ghosh, Y. Iqbal, T. M¨ uller, R. T. Ponnaganti, R. Thomale, R. Narayanan, J. Reuther, M. J. P. Gin- gras, and H. O. Jeschke, Breathing chromium spinels: a showcase for a variety of pyrochlore Heisenberg Hamilto- nians, npj Quantum Mater.4, 63 (2019)

    2019

  34. [44]

    Sachdev and R

    S. Sachdev and R. N. Bhatt, Bond-operator representa- tion of quantum spins: Mean-field theory of frustrated quantum Heisenberg antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B41, 9323 (1990)

    1990

  35. [45]

    Normand and C

    B. Normand and C. R¨ uegg, Complete bond-operator the- ory of the two-chain spin ladder, Phys. Rev. B83, 054415 (2011)

    2011

  36. [46]

    R¨ uegg, B

    C. R¨ uegg, B. Normand, M. Matsumoto, C. Niedermayer, A. Furrer, K. W. Kr¨ amer, H.-U. G¨ udel, P. Bourges, Y. Sidis, and H. Mutka, Quantum statistics of interacting dimer spin systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 267201 (2005)

    2005

  37. [47]

    Shimokawa, K

    T. Shimokawa, K. Watanabe, and H. Kawamura, Static and dynamical spin correlations of theS= 1 2 random- bond antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model on the triangu- lar and kagome lattices, Phys. Rev. B92, 134407 (2015)

    2015

  38. [48]

    Uematsu and H

    K. Uematsu and H. Kawamura, Randomness-Induced Quantum Spin Liquid Behavior in thes= 1/2 Random- Bond Heisenberg Antiferromagnet on the Pyrochlore Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 087201 (2019)

    2019

  39. [49]

    Gatteschi, R

    D. Gatteschi, R. Sessoli, and J. Villain,Molecular Nano- magnets(Oxford University Press, 2006)

    2006

  40. [50]

    Furrer and O

    A. Furrer and O. Waldmann, Magnetic cluster excita- tions, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 367 (2013)

    2013

  41. [51]

    Schmidt and J

    H.-J. Schmidt and J. Richter, Classical ground states of spin lattices, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.55, 465005 (2022)

    2022

  42. [52]

    Sch¨ afer, P

    R. Sch¨ afer, P. L. Ebert, N. Hassan, J. Reuther, D. J. Luitz, and A. Wietek, Thermodynamics of the heisenberg antiferromagnet on the maple-leaf lattice, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Naturforschung A doi:10.1515/zna-2025-0382

    2025 doi

  43. [53]

    Schnack, J

    J. Schnack, J. Schulenburg, and J. Richter, Magnetism of theN= 42 kagome lattice antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B98, 094423 (2018)

    2018

  44. [54]

    Reuther and P

    J. Reuther and P. W¨ olfle,J 1-J2 Frustrated Two- Dimensional Heisenberg Model: Random Phase Approx- imation and Functional Renormalization Group, Phys. Rev. B81, 144410 (2010)

    2010

  45. [55]

    Reuther and R

    J. Reuther and R. Thomale, Functional Renormalization Group for the Anisotropic Triangular Antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B83, 024402 (2011)

    2011

  46. [56]

    F. L. Buessen, V. Noculak, S. Trebst, and J. Reuther, Functional Renormalization Group for Frustrated Mag- nets with Nondiagonal Spin Interactions, Phys. Rev. B 100, 125164 (2019)

    2019

  47. [57]

    Kiese, T

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

    2022

  48. [58]

    M¨ uller, D

    T. M¨ uller, D. Kiese, N. Niggemann, B. Sbierski, J. Reuther, S. Trebst, R. Thomale, and Y. Iqbal, Pseudo- fermion functional renormalization group for spin mod- els, Rep. Prog. Phys.87, 036501 (2024)

    2024

  49. [60]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  50. [61]

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

    1995

  51. [62]

    Mizokawa and A

    T. Mizokawa and A. Fujimori, Electronic structure and orbital ordering in perovskite-type 3d transition-metal oxides studied by hartree-fock band-structure calcula- tions, Phys. Rev. B54, 5368 (1996)

    1996

  52. [63]

    Anderson, P

    I. Anderson, P. Brown, J. Carpenter, G. Lander, R. Pynn, J. Rowe, O. Sch¨ arpf, V. Sears, and B. Willis, Neutron techniques, inInternational Tables for Crystal- lography Volume C: Mathematical, physical and chemical tables(Springer, 2006) pp. 430–487

    2006

  53. [64]

    M¨ uller, D

    T. M¨ uller, D. Kiese, and L. Gresista, do- minikkiese/pffrgsolver.jl: v0.5.1 (2023)

    2023

  54. [65]

    A. A. Katanin, Fulfillment of Ward identities in the func- tional renormalization group approach, Phys. Rev. B70, 115109 (2004)

    2004

  55. [66]

    Gresista, D

    L. Gresista, D. Lozano-G´ omez, M. Vojta, S. Trebst, and Y. Iqbal, Quantum effects on pyrochlore higher-rank U(1) spin liquids: Pinch-line singularities, spin nematics, and connections to oxide materials, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 033109 (2025)

    2025

  56. [67]

    Gresista, C

    L. Gresista, C. Hickey, S. Trebst, and Y. Iqbal, Candidate quantum disordered intermediate phase in the Heisen- berg antiferromagnet on the maple-leaf lattice, Phys. Rev. B108, L241116 (2023). 12 Supplementary material to Crystallography-driven molecularization of a two-dimens...

    2023

  57. [68]

    F. M. Chang and M. Jansen, Darstellung und Kristall- struktur von Na2Mn3O7, Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem.531, 177 (1985)

    1985

  58. [69]

    E. A. Raekelboom, A. L. Hector, J. Owen, G. Vitins, and M. T. Weller, Syntheses, structures, and prelimi- nary electrochemistry of the layered lithium and sodium manganese(IV) oxides, A2Mn3O7, Chem. Mater.13, 4618 (2001)

    2001

  59. [70]

    B. Song, M. Tang, E. Hu, O. J. Borkiewicz, K. M. Wiaderek, Y. Zhang, N. D. Phillip, X. Liu, Z. Shadike, C. Li, L. Song, Y.-Y. Hu, M. Chi, G. M. Veith, X.-Q. Yang, J. Liu, J. Nanda, K. Page, and A. Huq, Understanding the low-voltage hysteresis of anionic redox in Na 2Mn3O7, Che...

    2019

  60. [71]

    Koepernik and H

    K. Koepernik and H. Eschrig, Full-potential nonorthog- onal local-orbital minimum-basis band-structure scheme, Phys. Rev. B59, 1743 (1999)

    1999

  61. [72]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  62. [73]

    Venkatesh, B

    C. Venkatesh, B. Bandyopadhyay, A. Midya, K. Ma- halingam, V. Ganesan, and P. Mandal, Magnetic prop- erties of the one-dimensionalS= 3 2 Heisenberg antiferro- magnetic spin-chain compound Na 2Mn3O7, Phys. Rev. B 101, 184429 (2020)

    2020

  63. [74]

    B. Saha, A. K. Bera, S. M. Yusuf, and A. Hoser, Two- dimensional short-range spin-spin correlations in the lay- ered spin- 3 2 maple leaf lattice antiferromagnet Na2Mn3O7 with crystal stacking disorder, Phys. Rev. B107, 064419 (2023)

    2023

  64. [75]

    Haraguchi, A

    Y. Haraguchi, A. Matsuo, K. Kindo, and Z. Hiroi, Frus- trated magnetism of the maple-leaf-lattice antiferromag- net MgMn3O7·3H 2O, Phys. Rev. B98, 064412 (2018)

    2018

  65. [76]

    Schmidt and J

    H.-J. Schmidt and J. Richter, Classical ground states of spin lattices, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.55, 465005 (2022). 17 6 (a) (b) 𝜒 2 Λ𝜒 Λ 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 ᵐᵃˣ 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Λ 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 ∂ ᵐᵃˣ (10³) 0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49L=6 L=9 L=12 L=15 ...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.