Fluctuation Mechanism of Single-Ion Anisotropy of Topological Insulator MnBi$_2$Te$_4$

A. Gamov; A.O. Zlotnikov; V.V. Val'kov

arxiv: 2604.07852 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el

Fluctuation Mechanism of Single-Ion Anisotropy of Topological Insulator MnBi₂Te₄

V.V. Val'kov , A.O. Zlotnikov , A. Gamov This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el

keywords single-ion anisotropyfluctuation mechanismMnBi2Te4topological insulatororbital singletspin-orbit couplingperturbation theory

0 comments

The pith

Charge fluctuations from electron hopping generate the observed single-ion anisotropy in MnBi2Te4.

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

The paper establishes that electron hopping between Mn ions induces charge fluctuations which, when combined with spin-orbit coupling, split the sixfold degeneracy of the 6S orbital singlet ground state of the manganese ions. This splitting produces an easy-axis single-ion anisotropy whose magnitude, calculated over a range of model parameters, includes the specific value needed to match the experimental spin-flop transition field. A multiplet representation of atomic states and second-order perturbation theory in the hopping term are used to derive the anisotropy constants D2 and the state populations. The mechanism is presented as general for any magnetic insulator whose ions have an orbital singlet ground state in a weak crystal field. If correct, it supplies a microscopic origin for the magnetic anisotropy that shapes the ordered phases of this topological material.

Core claim

Charge fluctuations induced by electron hopping, combined with spin-orbit coupling, lift the sixfold degeneracy of the orbital singlet 6S of Mn ions in the topological insulator MnBi2Te4, resulting in single-ion anisotropy. Using a multiplet representation for the creation operators of atomic-state fermions and operator-form perturbation theory to second order, expressions for the populations n_M of the Mn states are obtained and the single-ion anisotropy constants are determined. The fluctuation mechanism produces easy-axis anisotropy, and the range of D2 values obtained by varying model parameters includes the experimental requirement D2 = -0.0095 meV needed to reproduce the critical field

What carries the argument

Multiplet representation of atomic-state fermions in terms of transition operators between many-body wavefunctions, together with second-order perturbation theory applied to the electron hopping term.

If this is right

The calculated D2 range includes the value -0.0095 meV required to match the observed spin-flop transition field.
Easy-axis single-ion anisotropy arises naturally from the fluctuation mechanism without additional assumptions.
The same second-order hopping-plus-SOC process can be applied to other compounds whose magnetic ions possess an orbital singlet ground state in weak crystal field.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If the fluctuation channel dominates, then modest changes in hopping amplitude or spin-orbit strength should allow experimental tuning of the anisotropy strength.
The mechanism supplies a microscopic route by which the interlayer magnetic order in MnBi2Te4 can be connected to its topological band structure.
Higher-order virtual processes neglected here would provide a quantitative correction that could be tested by enlarging the perturbative expansion.

Load-bearing premise

The Mn ion ground state remains a pure orbital singlet 6S term in a weak crystal field, and second-order processes in the hopping fully determine the anisotropy without higher-order corrections or strong crystal-field mixing.

What would settle it

A direct experimental determination of the anisotropy constant D2 in MnBi2Te4, for example by torque magnetometry or resonance, that lies outside the calculated parameter range, or a third-order perturbation calculation that shifts D2 far from the experimental spin-flop value.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07852 by A. Gamov, A.O. Zlotnikov, V.V. Val'kov.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Dependences of the anisotropy parameter D2 on λd at three values of λp. The black solid line is plotted for λp = 0. The red dashed line corresponds to the value λp = 0.02 eV. The blue dashed line is plotted for λp = −0.02 eV. The horizontal dashed line indicates the value of D2 = −0.0095meV corresponding to the value of the SIA parameter of MnBi2Te4, determined from spin-flop field data. D2(λd) for this ca… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Dependencies of D2(λd) at five values of the λp parameter: λp = −0.1 eV (red dashed line), λp = −0.05 eV (red solid line), λp = 0.1 eV (blue solid line), up to λp = 0.1 eV (blue dashed line). The black solid line corresponds to the value of λp = 0. The horizontal dashed line has the same meaning as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We demonstrate that charge fluctuations induced by electron hopping, combined with spin-orbit coupling, lift the sixfold degeneracy of the orbital singlet $^{6}S$ of Mn ions in the topological insulator MnBi$_2$Te$_4$, resulting in single-ion anisotropy. To solve the problem, a multiplet representation is introduced for the creation operators of atomic-state fermions in terms of the operators describing transitions between many-body wavefunctions. Using the operator form of perturbation theory up to the second order, we derive expressions for the populations $n_M$ of Mn ion states with spin projections $M$ of the $^{6}S$ term and determine the single ion anisotropy constants. The calculations reveal that the fluctuation mechanism ensures the possibility of implementing the easy-axis anisotropy observed in MnBi$_2$Te$_4$. Notably, the range of anisotropy constants $D_2$ obtained by varying the model parameters includes the value $D_2 = -0.0095$ meV, required to reproduce the critical field of the spin-flop transition $H_{\text{sf}}$, known from the experiment. The proposed mechanism has a wide range of applicability for describing the anisotropy in compounds where the ground state of a magnetic ion in a weak crystal field is described by an orbital singlet.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper derives single-ion anisotropy in MnBi2Te4 from charge fluctuations on the Mn 6S multiplet via second-order perturbation, but reaches the key D2 value by tuning hopping and SOC parameters to match experiment.

read the letter

The core contribution is a microscopic route to easy-axis anisotropy in MnBi2Te4 that starts from electron hopping fluctuations plus spin-orbit coupling acting on the orbital-singlet 6S ground state of Mn2+. They introduce a multiplet representation for the atomic fermion operators and carry the perturbation expansion to second order to obtain populations n_M and the resulting anisotropy constants. This is new for this material; prior work on MnBi2Te4 has not derived the anisotropy this way from charge fluctuations. The calculation shows that a range of reasonable hopping integrals and SOC strengths produces D2 values that include the -0.0095 meV needed to reproduce the experimental spin-flop field. That is useful for anyone modeling how topology and magnetism coexist in these compounds, and the closing remark about applicability to other weak-crystal-field orbital singlets is reasonable. The approach is formally grounded enough that the derivations can be checked and reproduced in principle. The main limitation is that D2 is not an independent prediction. The authors scan the free parameters until the anisotropy constant falls inside the window required by the measured H_sf, so the result functions more as a consistency demonstration than a first-principles output. The abstract gives no explicit bounds on those parameters from independent data, no error estimates, and no explicit check that third-order or higher virtual processes remain negligible. If the crystal-field splitting is not small compared with the hopping or SOC scales, the pure-6S assumption and the truncation to second order would both need re-examination. The full manuscript presumably contains the operator expressions and the numerical scans, but the fitting step still leaves the mechanism plausible rather than tightly constrained. This paper is aimed at theorists working on magnetic topological insulators and single-ion effects. A reader looking for alternative microscopic origins of anisotropy will find the fluctuation picture worth considering. It is coherent on its own terms and engages the relevant literature, so it deserves a serious referee rather than a desk rejection. A reviewer could usefully press on the parameter ranges and the separation of scales, but the underlying perturbation framework is worth the time.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that charge fluctuations from electron hopping, combined with spin-orbit coupling, lift the sixfold degeneracy of the Mn^{2+} orbital singlet ^6S ground state in MnBi2Te4, inducing single-ion anisotropy. Using a multiplet representation of atomic-state fermions and second-order operator perturbation theory, expressions for state populations n_M and anisotropy constants are derived; the authors conclude that the mechanism permits the observed easy-axis anisotropy, with the range of D2 obtained by parameter variation including the experimental value D2 = -0.0095 meV needed to match the spin-flop field H_sf.

Significance. If the second-order treatment and weak-crystal-field assumptions hold with physically bounded parameters, the work would supply a microscopic fluctuation-based account of single-ion anisotropy in this topological insulator and similar compounds with orbital-singlet ions, complementing conventional crystal-field or dipolar mechanisms and highlighting charge-fluctuation effects in magnetic topological materials.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract and results on D2: the value D2 = -0.0095 meV is obtained by varying unspecified model parameters (hopping integrals and SOC strength) until the experimental spin-flop field is reproduced. This makes D2 a fitted quantity lying within a scanned range rather than an independent prediction, undermining the claim that the fluctuation mechanism 'ensures' the observed anisotropy without additional tuning.
[Derivation of n_M and D2] Derivation of anisotropy via second-order perturbation: the central claim rests on the Mn^{2+} ground state remaining a pure ^6S orbital singlet in a weak crystal field, with anisotropy arising solely from second-order virtual hopping. No quantitative bounds on crystal-field splitting relative to hopping/SOC scales or estimates showing higher-order terms are negligible are provided; if these assumptions are violated, both sign and magnitude of D2 can change.

minor comments (1)

[Method] The multiplet representation for creation operators is introduced but its explicit operator form and commutation relations should be stated in the main text or an appendix to allow independent verification of the perturbation expansion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and constructive criticism. The comments highlight important points regarding the interpretation of our results and the assumptions underlying the perturbation treatment. We address each major comment below and outline revisions that will clarify the scope of the work without altering its core conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and results on D2: the value D2 = -0.0095 meV is obtained by varying unspecified model parameters (hopping integrals and SOC strength) until the experimental spin-flop field is reproduced. This makes D2 a fitted quantity lying within a scanned range rather than an independent prediction, undermining the claim that the fluctuation mechanism 'ensures' the observed anisotropy without additional tuning.

Authors: We agree that the specific value D2 = -0.0095 meV is identified by scanning the hopping and SOC parameters to reproduce the experimental spin-flop field, rather than emerging as an ab initio prediction. The manuscript demonstrates that the charge-fluctuation mechanism naturally yields easy-axis anisotropy whose magnitude falls within the experimentally relevant range for physically plausible parameter values. We will revise the abstract to state explicitly that the mechanism permits the observed anisotropy (with the computed D2 range including the experimental value) and to avoid any implication of an untuned, first-principles guarantee. This revision will make the nature of the result clearer while preserving the central finding. revision: yes
Referee: [Derivation of n_M and D2] Derivation of anisotropy via second-order perturbation: the central claim rests on the Mn^{2+} ground state remaining a pure ^6S orbital singlet in a weak crystal field, with anisotropy arising solely from second-order virtual hopping. No quantitative bounds on crystal-field splitting relative to hopping/SOC scales or estimates showing higher-order terms are negligible are provided; if these assumptions are violated, both sign and magnitude of D2 can change.

Authors: The weak-crystal-field assumption for Mn^{2+} (half-filled d^5 shell) is conventional because it produces an orbital singlet ^6S ground state. We acknowledge, however, that the original manuscript does not supply explicit numerical bounds on the crystal-field splitting relative to hopping or SOC, nor estimates of higher-order corrections. We will add a dedicated paragraph with literature values for crystal-field parameters in MnBi2Te4 and related Mn compounds, together with a brief scaling argument showing that second-order virtual processes dominate within the relevant regime. This addition will quantify the validity window of the approximation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation of anisotropy via fluctuation mechanism

full rationale

The paper derives expressions for single-ion anisotropy constants D2 from second-order perturbation theory in the hopping term, using a multiplet representation of creation operators for atomic-state fermions and the operator form of perturbation theory applied to the orbital singlet 6S ground state. This produces populations n_M and anisotropy constants as functions of microscopic model parameters (hopping, SOC). The statement that varying these parameters produces a range of D2 that includes the value -0.0095 meV needed for the experimental H_sf is a consistency check on the mechanism's applicability, not a reduction of the derived expressions to the experimental input by construction. No equations or steps in the provided text reduce the central result to a fit, self-definition, or self-citation chain. The derivation remains self-contained against the model Hamiltonian and perturbative expansion.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard second-order perturbation theory applied to a multiplet operator representation under the assumption of a weak crystal field; several model parameters (hopping amplitudes, spin-orbit strength) are varied to encompass the experimental anisotropy value.

free parameters (1)

electron hopping integrals and spin-orbit coupling strength
Varied across a range so that the computed D2 includes the experimental value -0.0095 meV

axioms (2)

domain assumption Second-order perturbation theory suffices to capture the anisotropy generated by charge fluctuations
Invoked to obtain populations n_M and anisotropy constants from the hopping term
domain assumption Mn ions experience a weak crystal field so that the ground state remains the orbital singlet 6S
Stated as the regime in which the fluctuation mechanism operates

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5543 in / 1454 out tokens · 44350 ms · 2026-05-10T17:51:57.980763+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Using the operator form of perturbation theory up to the second order, we derive expressions for the populations n_M ... and determine the single ion anisotropy constants.
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/DimensionForcing.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

The fluctuation mechanism ensures the possibility of implementing the easy-axis anisotropy observed in MnBi2Te4.

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

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[1]

M. M. Otrokov, I. I. Klimovskikh, H. Bentmann, et al. (Collaboration), Nature 576, 416 (2019)

work page 2019
[2]

J.-Q. Yan, Q. Zhang, T. Heitmann, Z. Huang, K. Y. Chen, J.-G. Cheng, W. Wu, D. Vaknin, B. C. Sales, and R. J. McQueeney, Phys. Rev. Mater. 3, 064202 (2019)

work page 2019
[3]

Y.-J. Hao, P. Liu, Y. Feng, et al. (Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X 9, 041038 (2019)

work page 2019
[4]

Li, J.-Q

B. Li, J.-Q. Yan, D. M. Pajerowski, E. Gordon, A.-M. Nedi, Y. Sizyuk, L. Ke, P. P. Orth, D. Vaknin, and R. J. McQueeney, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 167204 (2020)

work page 2020
[5]

J. B. Goodenough Magnetism and the Chemical Bond (Interscience Publishers, New York – London, 1963)

work page 1963
[6]

and Naumenko V.M

Eremenko V.V., Kharchenko N.F., Litvinenko Y.G. and Naumenko V.M. Magneto-Optics and Spectroscopy of Antiferromagnets (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992)

work page 1992
[7]

L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic Theory (Pergamon Press, 1977)

work page 1977
[8]

J.-Q. Yan, S. Okamoto, M. A. McGuire, A. F. May, R. J. McQueeney, and B. C. Sales, Phys. Rev. B 100, 104409 (2019)

work page 2019
[9]

Y. Lai, L. Ke, J. Yan, R. D. McDonald, and R. J. McQueeney, Phys. Rev. B 103, 184429 (2021)

work page 2021
[10]

S. Li, T. Liu, C. Liu, Y. Wang, H.-Z. Lu, and X. C. Xie, National Science Review nwac296 (2023)

work page 2023
[11]

C. J. Ballhausen, Introduction to Ligand Field Theory (McGraw-Hill Book, New York, 1962). 10 JETP FLUCTUATION MECHANISM OF SINGLE-ION ANISOTROPY OF . . . MnBi 2Te4

work page 1962
[12]

S. A. Al’tshuler and B. M. Kozyrev, Electron Paramagnetic Resonance in Compounds of Transition Elements (Wiley, New York, 1974; Nauka, Moscow, 1972)

work page 1974
[13]

Y. Li, Z. Jiang, J. Li, S. Xu, and W. Duan, Phys. Rev. B 100, 134438 (2019)

work page 2019
[14]

Hubbard, Proc

J. Hubbard, Proc. Roy. Soc., A 285, 542 (1965)

work page 1965
[15]

N. N. Bogolubov Introduction to Quantum Statistical Mechanics, (Springer, World Scientiﬁc, 2010)

work page 2010
[16]

Marzari, A

N. Marzari, A. A. Mostoﬁ, J. R. Yates, I. Souza, and D. Vanderbilt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1419 (2012)

work page 2012
[17]

Pizzi, V

G. Pizzi, V. Vitale, R. Arita et al. (Collaboration), J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 32, 165902 (2020)

work page 2020
[18]

J. Li, Y. Li, S. Du, Z. Wang, B.-L. Gu, S.-C. Zhang, K. He, W. Duan, and Y. Xu, Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw5685 (2019)

work page 2019
[19]

S. Xiao, X. Xiao, F. Zhan, J. Fan, X. Wu, and R. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 105, 125126 (2022)

work page 2022
[20]

Wu, Sh.N

Q.Sh. Wu, Sh.N. Zhang, H.-F. Song, M. Troyer, A.A. Soluyanov, Computer Physics Communications 224, 405 (2018)

work page 2018
[21]

R. Gao, G. Qin, S. Qi, Z. Qiao, and W. Ren, Phys. Rev. Mater. 5, 114201 (2021)

work page 2021
[22]

W.-T. Guo, Z. Huang, and J.-M. Zhang, Commun Phys 8, 1 (2025)

work page 2025
[23]

T. Zhu, H. Wang, H. Zhang, and D. Xing, Npj Comput Mater 7, 1 (2021)

work page 2021
[24]

J. Li, J. Y. Ni, X. Y. Li, H.-J. Koo, M.-H. Whangbo, J. S. Feng, and H. J. Xiang, Phys. Rev. B 101, 201408 (2020)

work page 2020
[25]

A. H. Wilson, Proc. Roy. Soc., London, 133, 458 (1931)

work page 1931
[26]

Stewens, Proc.Phys.Soc

K.W.H. Stewens, Proc.Phys.Soc. Ams., v. A65, 209 (1952)

work page 1952
[27]

A. K. Zvezdin, V. M. Matveev, A. A. Mukhin, and A. I. Popov, Rare-Earth Ions in Magnetically Ordered Crystals (Nauka, Moscow, 1985) [in Russian]

work page 1985
[28]

V. V. Val’kov, A. O. Zlotnikov, A. Gamov, N. A. Fedorova, and F. N. Tomilin, JETP Lett. 120, 499 (2024). Translated by Nauka Publishing House. 11

work page 2024

[1] [1]

M. M. Otrokov, I. I. Klimovskikh, H. Bentmann, et al. (Collaboration), Nature 576, 416 (2019)

work page 2019

[2] [2]

J.-Q. Yan, Q. Zhang, T. Heitmann, Z. Huang, K. Y. Chen, J.-G. Cheng, W. Wu, D. Vaknin, B. C. Sales, and R. J. McQueeney, Phys. Rev. Mater. 3, 064202 (2019)

work page 2019

[3] [3]

Y.-J. Hao, P. Liu, Y. Feng, et al. (Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X 9, 041038 (2019)

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Li, J.-Q

B. Li, J.-Q. Yan, D. M. Pajerowski, E. Gordon, A.-M. Nedi, Y. Sizyuk, L. Ke, P. P. Orth, D. Vaknin, and R. J. McQueeney, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 167204 (2020)

work page 2020

[5] [5]

J. B. Goodenough Magnetism and the Chemical Bond (Interscience Publishers, New York – London, 1963)

work page 1963

[6] [6]

and Naumenko V.M

Eremenko V.V., Kharchenko N.F., Litvinenko Y.G. and Naumenko V.M. Magneto-Optics and Spectroscopy of Antiferromagnets (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992)

work page 1992

[7] [7]

L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic Theory (Pergamon Press, 1977)

work page 1977

[8] [8]

J.-Q. Yan, S. Okamoto, M. A. McGuire, A. F. May, R. J. McQueeney, and B. C. Sales, Phys. Rev. B 100, 104409 (2019)

work page 2019

[9] [9]

Y. Lai, L. Ke, J. Yan, R. D. McDonald, and R. J. McQueeney, Phys. Rev. B 103, 184429 (2021)

work page 2021

[10] [10]

S. Li, T. Liu, C. Liu, Y. Wang, H.-Z. Lu, and X. C. Xie, National Science Review nwac296 (2023)

work page 2023

[11] [11]

C. J. Ballhausen, Introduction to Ligand Field Theory (McGraw-Hill Book, New York, 1962). 10 JETP FLUCTUATION MECHANISM OF SINGLE-ION ANISOTROPY OF . . . MnBi 2Te4

work page 1962

[12] [12]

S. A. Al’tshuler and B. M. Kozyrev, Electron Paramagnetic Resonance in Compounds of Transition Elements (Wiley, New York, 1974; Nauka, Moscow, 1972)

work page 1974

[13] [13]

Y. Li, Z. Jiang, J. Li, S. Xu, and W. Duan, Phys. Rev. B 100, 134438 (2019)

work page 2019

[14] [14]

Hubbard, Proc

J. Hubbard, Proc. Roy. Soc., A 285, 542 (1965)

work page 1965

[15] [15]

N. N. Bogolubov Introduction to Quantum Statistical Mechanics, (Springer, World Scientiﬁc, 2010)

work page 2010

[16] [16]

Marzari, A

N. Marzari, A. A. Mostoﬁ, J. R. Yates, I. Souza, and D. Vanderbilt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1419 (2012)

work page 2012

[17] [17]

Pizzi, V

G. Pizzi, V. Vitale, R. Arita et al. (Collaboration), J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 32, 165902 (2020)

work page 2020

[18] [18]

J. Li, Y. Li, S. Du, Z. Wang, B.-L. Gu, S.-C. Zhang, K. He, W. Duan, and Y. Xu, Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw5685 (2019)

work page 2019

[19] [19]

S. Xiao, X. Xiao, F. Zhan, J. Fan, X. Wu, and R. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 105, 125126 (2022)

work page 2022

[20] [20]

Wu, Sh.N

Q.Sh. Wu, Sh.N. Zhang, H.-F. Song, M. Troyer, A.A. Soluyanov, Computer Physics Communications 224, 405 (2018)

work page 2018

[21] [21]

R. Gao, G. Qin, S. Qi, Z. Qiao, and W. Ren, Phys. Rev. Mater. 5, 114201 (2021)

work page 2021

[22] [22]

W.-T. Guo, Z. Huang, and J.-M. Zhang, Commun Phys 8, 1 (2025)

work page 2025

[23] [23]

T. Zhu, H. Wang, H. Zhang, and D. Xing, Npj Comput Mater 7, 1 (2021)

work page 2021

[24] [24]

J. Li, J. Y. Ni, X. Y. Li, H.-J. Koo, M.-H. Whangbo, J. S. Feng, and H. J. Xiang, Phys. Rev. B 101, 201408 (2020)

work page 2020

[25] [25]

A. H. Wilson, Proc. Roy. Soc., London, 133, 458 (1931)

work page 1931

[26] [26]

Stewens, Proc.Phys.Soc

K.W.H. Stewens, Proc.Phys.Soc. Ams., v. A65, 209 (1952)

work page 1952

[27] [27]

A. K. Zvezdin, V. M. Matveev, A. A. Mukhin, and A. I. Popov, Rare-Earth Ions in Magnetically Ordered Crystals (Nauka, Moscow, 1985) [in Russian]

work page 1985

[28] [28]

V. V. Val’kov, A. O. Zlotnikov, A. Gamov, N. A. Fedorova, and F. N. Tomilin, JETP Lett. 120, 499 (2024). Translated by Nauka Publishing House. 11

work page 2024