pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.29989 · v1 · pith:DFXIRBYFnew · submitted 2026-05-28 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall

Thermodynamic and magnetocaloric properties of a triangular spin-1/2 cluster with Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction

Jordana Torrico , Romulo A. Silva , S. M. de Souza , Onofre Rojas This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 06:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords triangular spin clusterDzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactionmagnetocaloric effectHeisenberg modelmagnetization plateaufrustrated magnetismmolecular magnetsthermodynamic properties
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction in a triangular spin-1/2 cluster produces both direct and inverse magnetocaloric effects through nontrivial field-dependent entropy changes.

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

The paper maps the energy levels, phases, and thermodynamic response of three spin-1/2 particles arranged in a triangle when an antisymmetric exchange term is added to the usual Heisenberg couplings. It finds that this term splits the ground-state degeneracy into ferromagnetic, ferrimagnetic, and frustrated regimes and creates a 1/3 magnetization plateau that thermal fluctuations eventually erase. Entropy and specific heat show residual values at low temperature plus Schottky anomalies, while the magnetocaloric response splits into regimes where the material cools or heats depending on how the field is swept. A reader would care because these small clusters model molecular magnets that could serve as tunable refrigerants, and the DM term offers an extra control knob for entropy variation. The central result is that the DM interaction makes the entropy-versus-field curves more intricate than in the symmetric case.

Core claim

The triangular spin-1/2 cluster governed by the Heisenberg Hamiltonian plus Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya terms exhibits ferromagnetic, ferrimagnetic, and frustrated ground-state phases. At low temperature the magnetization displays a 1/3 plateau that vanishes with rising temperature. Entropy carries residual contributions from ground-state degeneracies, specific heat shows Schottky peaks, and the magnetocaloric effect contains both direct and inverse regimes whose detailed field dependence is shaped by the strength of the DM interaction.

What carries the argument

The spin-1/2 Heisenberg Hamiltonian with antisymmetric Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya exchange on each bond of the triangle, whose exact eigenvalues are used to compute all thermodynamic quantities for the finite cluster.

If this is right

  • A 1/3 magnetization plateau appears at low temperature and disappears with thermal fluctuations.
  • Residual entropy persists at zero temperature because of ground-state degeneracies.
  • Both direct and inverse magnetocaloric regimes exist and depend on the direction and range of field change.
  • Schottky anomalies appear in the specific heat at intermediate temperatures.
  • The DM term produces additional low-temperature features in entropy and susceptibility tied to the phase boundaries.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the DM strength can be tuned by chemical substitution or pressure, the same cluster could be switched between cooling and heating modes by modest field adjustments.
  • The finite-cluster phase boundaries may serve as a guide for locating similar field-induced transitions in larger frustrated lattices that contain DM interactions.
  • The same Hamiltonian could be applied to other small clusters such as tetrahedra to test whether DM-induced MCE complexity is geometry-specific.
  • Susceptibility peaks near the predicted phase transitions offer a direct experimental signature that could be checked in Cu3-based compounds.

Load-bearing premise

The three-spin cluster with only Heisenberg plus DM terms already contains all the physics needed to describe the observed thermodynamic and magnetocaloric behavior.

What would settle it

An experimental entropy-change curve versus magnetic field that remains simple and monotonic even when the DM strength is varied would falsify the claim of nontrivial DM-driven variations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.29989 by Jordana Torrico, Onofre Rojas, Romulo A. Silva, S. M. de Souza.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic representation of a spin-1/2 Heisenberg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Left column) Energy spectrum as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Zero-temperature phase diagram in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the total magnetization M as a func￾tion of the external magnetic field B for different tem￾peratures T, with the values of T indicated in panel (b). At zero temperature, the system exhibits a finite mag￾netization, which gradually decreases as T increases due to the thermal destruction of spin order. This behav￾ior reflects the fact that, although the system is a finite quantum cluster (zero-dimensi… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Total magnetization M as a function of temperature T for different values of magnetic field B and D, with J1 = J2 = J3 = −1. (Right column) Corresponding results for J1 = −0.8, J2 = −1, and J3 = −0.7. B. For fields below the critical value Bc, the magne￾tization displays an anomalous maximum: it increases at low temperatures, reaches a peak, and then decreases monotonically as thermal fluctuations become s… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Entropy S as a function of temperature T (loga￾rithmic scale). (Left column) Results for J1 = J2 = J3 = −1, with different values of B and D. (Right column) Results for J1 = −0.8, J2 = −1, and J3 = −0.7, for various values of B and D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Fig.2. At the critical field, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Specific heat C as a function of temperature T (logarithmic scale). (Left column) Results for J1 = J2 = J3 = −1, with two values of D and several values of B. (Right column) Results for J1 = −0.8, J2 = −1, and J3 = −0.7, also for two values of D and several values of B. tures. For B ≲ Bc, the anomalous peak is suppressed relative to the Schottky peak, whereas for B ≳ Bc, the anomalous peak becomes more pro… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Density plots of the entropy S in the B − T plane (logarithmic temperature scale). The color scale on the right indicates the entropy magnitude. (Left column) Results for J1 = J2 = J3 = −1, with two values of D. (Right column) Results for J1 = −0.8, J2 = −1, and J3 = −0.7, also with two values of D. entropy with temperature and field. A pronounced de￾pression of T as a function of B appears at the critica… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Isothermal entropy variation, −∆S, as a function of temperature T (logarithmic scale) for several final magnetic fields Bf , starting from different initial fields. The first row corresponds to Bi = 0, the second to Bi = 10−3 , the third to Bi = 0.1, and the fourth to Bi = 1. The first and third columns show results for D = 0, while the second and fourth columns correspond to D = −0.5. The values of the e… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Density plots of the magnetic entropy variation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a theoretical investigation of the magnetic and thermodynamic properties of the triangular spin-1/2 cluster with Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) interaction, described by a spin-1/2 Heisenberg Hamiltonian with antisymmetric exchange interactions. The energy spectrum and ground-state phase diagram reveal the presence of ferromagnetic (FM), ferrimagnetic (FI), and frustrated (FR) phases, strongly influenced by the total spin and the DM interaction. We analyze magnetization and susceptibility, showing that at low temperatures the system exhibits a characteristic 1/3 magnetization plateau, while thermal fluctuations suppress magnetic order at higher temperatures. The entropy and specific heat display residual entropies due to ground-state degeneracies, Schottky-type anomalies at intermediate temperatures, and additional low-temperature features related to phase transitions. Particular attention is given to the magnetocaloric effect (MCE), characterized by both direct and inverse regimes depending on the magnetic field variation. We find that the DM interaction enhances the complexity of the MCE, leading to nontrivial entropy variations as a function of the magnetic field. These results provide insights into the role of frustration and anisotropy in tuning the MCE of properties triangular spin clusters, with relevance to \mathrm{Cu}_{3}-based molecular magnets.

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

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript theoretically investigates the thermodynamic and magnetocaloric properties of an isolated triangular spin-1/2 cluster governed by the Heisenberg Hamiltonian augmented by Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) antisymmetric exchange. Using exact diagonalization, the authors obtain the energy spectrum and ground-state phase diagram (FM, FI, FR phases), magnetization curves exhibiting a 1/3 plateau at low T, susceptibility, entropy (with residual values from degeneracies), specific heat (Schottky anomalies), and the magnetocaloric effect, reporting both direct and inverse regimes whose complexity is enhanced by the DM term. Results are compared with and without DM and are positioned as relevant to Cu3-based molecular magnets.

Significance. If the calculations hold, the work supplies a clean, parameter-controlled demonstration that DM interaction qualitatively alters entropy-field dependence in a minimal frustrated cluster. Because the system is finite (N=3), the thermodynamics is exactly computable from the 8-dimensional Hilbert space with no extrapolation required; the internal with/without-DM comparison therefore constitutes a falsifiable, reproducible prediction for molecular-magnet experiments.

minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract and introduction should explicitly state the Hamiltonian (including the precise form of the DM term, e.g., vector D orientation) and the numerical method (exact diagonalization of the 8×8 matrix) so that the reported spectra and MCE curves can be reproduced from the text alone.
  2. Figure captions and axis labels for entropy and MCE plots should indicate the specific parameter values (J, D, T) used; without them the claim that DM produces “nontrivial entropy variations” cannot be verified quantitatively.
  3. A short paragraph comparing the obtained 1/3 plateau and residual entropy to existing literature on the pure Heisenberg triangle (D=0) would strengthen the novelty statement regarding the DM-induced enhancement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our work on the thermodynamic and magnetocaloric properties of the triangular spin-1/2 cluster with DM interaction. The recommendation for minor revision is appreciated. No specific major comments were listed in the report, so we provide no point-by-point responses below.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained exact diagonalization

full rationale

The paper performs exact diagonalization on the finite three-spin Hamiltonian (Heisenberg + DM + Zeeman) to obtain the complete energy spectrum, from which all thermodynamic quantities (entropy, specific heat, magnetization, MCE) are computed directly via the partition function. No parameters are fitted to data and then relabeled as predictions; no thermodynamic-limit extrapolation is invoked; all comparisons (with/without DM) are internal parameter sweeps. The provided abstract and description contain no self-citations that bear load on the central claims, nor any ansatz smuggling or renaming of known results. The finite-cluster spectrum is the full thermodynamics for an isolated molecular magnet, rendering the derivation non-circular by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; ledger entries are inferred from the stated model. The central claim rests on the assumption that the chosen Hamiltonian and its exact diagonalization suffice to describe the MCE.

free parameters (2)
  • Heisenberg exchange J
    Overall energy scale of the symmetric interaction; typically set to a reference value or scanned.
  • DM interaction strength D
    Strength of the antisymmetric term whose variation is reported to enhance MCE complexity.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The physical system is faithfully represented by the spin-1/2 Heisenberg Hamiltonian plus DM term on a triangle
    Explicitly stated as the model used for all calculations.
  • standard math Thermodynamic quantities are obtained from the exact finite-size spectrum
    Implicit in any exact-diagonalization study of a three-spin system.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5780 in / 1461 out tokens · 33511 ms · 2026-06-29T06:03:24.817397+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gatteschi, R

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

    2006

  2. [2]

    Gatteschi and R

    D. Gatteschi and R. Sessoli, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed.42, 268, (2003). https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.200390099

    work page doi:10.1002/anie.200390099 2003

  3. [3]

    https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst9030132

    Maria Balanda and Magdalena Fitta,Crystals9, 132, (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst9030132

    work page doi:10.3390/cryst9030132 2019

  4. [4]

    Leuenberger, D

    M. Leuenberger, D. Loss, Nature410, 789 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/35071024

    work page doi:10.1038/35071024 2001

  5. [5]

    Lehmann, A

    J. Lehmann, A. Gaita-Ari˜ no, E. Coronado, and D. Loss, Nat. Nanotechnol.2, 312 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2007.110

    work page doi:10.1038/nnano.2007.110 2007

  6. [6]

    Thomas, F

    L. Thomas, F. Lionti, R. Ballou, D. Gatteschi, R. Ses- soli, and B. Barbara, Nature (London)383, 145 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1038/383145a0

    work page doi:10.1038/383145a0 1996

  7. [7]

    Sessoli, D

    R. Sessoli, D. Gatteschi, A. Caneschi and M. A. Novak, Nature365, 141, ( 1993). https://doi.org/10.1038/365141a0

    work page doi:10.1038/365141a0 1993

  8. [8]

    Gatteschi, Adv

    D. Gatteschi, Adv. Mater.6, 635, (1994). https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.19940060903

    work page doi:10.1002/adma.19940060903 1994

  9. [9]

    Coronado, P

    E. Coronado, P. Delhaes, D. Gatteschi and J. Miller, (eds.),Localized and Itinerant Molecular Magnetism: From Molecular Assemblies to the Devices, NATO ASI Series E: Applied Sciences Vol. 321 (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1996)

    1996

  10. [10]

    J. R. Friedman, M. P. Sarachik, J. Tejada, and R. Ziolo, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 3830 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.3830

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.76.3830 1996

  11. [11]

    Julien, Z

    M.-H. Julien, Z. H. Jang, A. Lascialfari, F. Borsa, M. Horvati´ c, A. Caneschi, and D. Gatteschi, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 227 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.227

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.83.227 1999

  12. [12]

    Carretta, P

    S. Carretta, P. Santini, G. Amoretti, F. Troiani, and M. Affronte, Phys. Rev. B76, 024408 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.76.024408

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.76.024408 2007

  13. [13]

    Bogani and W

    L. Bogani and W. Wernsdorfer, Nat. Mater.7, 179 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat2133

    work page doi:10.1038/nmat2133 2008

  14. [14]

    J. M. Clemente-Juan, E. Coronado, and A. Gaita-Arino, Chem. Soc. Rev.41, 7464 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1039/C2CS35205B

    work page doi:10.1039/c2cs35205b 2012

  15. [15]

    Coronado, Nat

    E. Coronado, Nat. Rev. Mater.5, 87 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-019-0146-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41578-019-0146-8 2020

  16. [16]

    Wang and P

    X. Wang and P. Zanardi, Phys. Lett. A301, 1 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(02)00885-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s0375-9601(02)00885-x 2002

  17. [17]

    Wang, Phys

    X. Wang, Phys. Rev. A66, 034302 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.66.034302

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.66.034302 2002

  18. [18]

    Wernsdorfer and R

    W. Wernsdorfer and R. Sessoli, Science284, 133 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5411.133

    work page doi:10.1126/science.284.5411.133 1999

  19. [19]

    K. L. Taft, C. D. Delfs, G. C. Papaefthymiou, S. Foner, D. Gatteschi, and S. J. Lippard, J. Am. Chem. Soc.116, 823 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00082a001

    work page doi:10.1021/ja00082a001 1994

  20. [20]

    Franco, J

    V. Franco, J. S. Bl´ azquez, J. J. Ipus, J. Y. Law, L. M. Moreno-Ram´ ırez, and A. Conde, Prog. Mater. Sci.93, 112 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2017.10.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pmatsci.2017.10.005 2018

  21. [21]

    Romero G´ omez, R

    J. Romero G´ omez, R. Ferreiro Garcia, A. De Miguel Catoira, and M. Romero G´ omez, Re- new. Sustain. Energy Rev.17, 74 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.09.027

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.09.027 2013

  22. [22]

    A. M. Tishin and Y. I. Spichkin,The Magnetocaloric Effect and Its Applications(CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2003)

    2003

  23. [23]

    Szalowski and P

    K. Szalowski and P. Kowalewska, Materials13, 485 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13020485

    work page doi:10.3390/ma13020485 2020

  24. [24]

    Kowalewska and K

    P. Kowalewska and K. Szalowski, J. 12 Magn. Magn. Mater.496, 165933 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2019.165933

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmmm.2019.165933 2020

  25. [25]

    Torrico and J

    J. Torrico and J. A. Plascak, Phys. Rev. E102, 062116 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.102.062116

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.102.062116 2020

  26. [26]

    Torrico and J

    J. Torrico and J. A. Plascak, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.552, 169151 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2022.169151

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmmm.2022.169151 2022

  27. [27]

    Sessoli, Angew

    R. Sessoli, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.51, 43 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201104448

    work page doi:10.1002/anie.201104448 2012

  28. [28]

    Y. Z. Zheng, G. J. Zhou, Z. Zheng, and R. E. P. Winpenny, Chem. Soc. Rev.43, 1462 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1039/C3CS60337G

    work page doi:10.1039/c3cs60337g 2014

  29. [29]

    Schnack, J

    J. Schnack, J. Low Temp. Phys.142, 279 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02679508

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02679508 2006

  30. [30]

    Schnack, R

    J. Schnack, R. Schmidt, and J. Richter, Phys. Rev. B76, 054413 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.76.054413

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.76.054413 2007

  31. [31]

    P. J. von Ranke, N. A. de Oliveira, B. P. Alho, E. J. R. Plaza, V. S. R. de Sousa, L. Caron, and M. S. Reis, J. Phys. Condens. Matter21, 056004 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/21/5/056004

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-8984/21/5/056004 2009

  32. [32]

    P. J. von Ranke, B. P. Alho, E. N´ obrega, and N. A. de Oliveira, Phys. B (Amsterdam)404, 3045 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physb.2009.07.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physb.2009.07.009 2009

  33. [33]

    J. M. Florez, P. Vargas, C. Garcia, and C. A. Ross, J. Phys. Condens. Matter25, 226004 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/25/22/226004

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-8984/25/22/226004 2013

  34. [34]

    Electron-phonon interaction and thermal boundary resistance at the interfaces of Ge2Sb2Te5 with metals and dielectrics,

    K. Szalowski and T. Balcerzak, J. Phys. Condens. Mat- ter26, 386003 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1088/0953- 8984/26/38/386003

    work page doi:10.1088/0953- 2014

  35. [35]

    Szalowski, Materials13, 4399 (2020)

    K. Szalowski, Materials13, 4399 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13194399

    work page doi:10.3390/ma13194399 2020

  36. [36]

    Rojas, G

    O. Rojas, G. Mirzoyan, Z. Adamyan, V. V. Papoyan, G. Amatuni, and N. Ananikian, Sci. Rep.15, 11758 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-92130-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-025-92130-5 2025

  37. [37]

    Rojas and M

    O. Rojas and M. Rojas, Ann. Phys. (Berl.)537, 2400291 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1103/gj3r-n25m

    work page doi:10.1103/gj3r-n25m 2025

  38. [38]

    G. A. Antonio, J. Torrico, A. S. da Mata, S. M. de Souza, and O. Rojas, Phys. Rev. B108, 134415 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.108.134415

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.108.134415 2023

  39. [39]

    K. Iida, Y. Qiu, and T. J. Sato, Phys. Rev. B84, 094449 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.094449

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.84.094449 2011

  40. [40]

    E. T. Spielberg, T. Stollenwerk, T. Boden- stein, et al., Inorg. Chem.54, 3432 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1021/ic503095t

    work page doi:10.1021/ic503095t 2015

  41. [41]

    Kintzel, M

    B. Kintzel, M. Huber, J. Schnack, et al., Chem. Commun. 54, 12934 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1039/c8cc06741d

    work page doi:10.1039/c8cc06741d 2018

  42. [42]

    J. Liu, H. Li, Y. Han, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 037202 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.037202

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.037202 2019

  43. [43]

    A. N. Ponomaryov, S. A. Zvyagin, J. Wos- nitza, et al., New J. Phys.17, 033042 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/17/3/033042

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/3/033042 2015

  44. [44]

    K.-Y. Choi, Y. H. Matsuda, H. Nojiri, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 107202 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.107202

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.107202 2006

  45. [45]

    K.-Y. Choi, H. Nojiri, Y. H. Matsuda, et al., Phys. Rev. B77, 024406 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.77.024406

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.77.024406 2008

  46. [46]

    Luzon, K

    J. Luzon, K. Bernot, I. J. Hewitt, C. E. Anson, A. K. Powell, and R. Ses- soli, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 247205 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.247205

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.247205 2008

  47. [47]

    Kortz, A

    U. Kortz, A. M¨ uller, J. van Slageren, J. Schnack, N. S. Dalal, and M. Dressel, Inorg. Chem.43, 144 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1021/ic034697b

    work page doi:10.1021/ic034697b 2004

  48. [48]

    R. Nath, A. A. Tsirlin, H. Rosner, et al., Phys. Rev. B87, 214417 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.87.214417

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.87.214417 2013

  49. [49]

    Rousochatzakis, Y

    I. Rousochatzakis, Y. Ajiro, H. Mitamura, P. K¨ oger- ler, and M. Luban, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 147204 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.147204

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.94.147204 2005

  50. [50]

    J. T. Haraldsen, T. Barnes, J. W. Sinclair, J. R. Thompson, R. L. Sacci, and J. F. C. Turner, Phys. Rev. B80, 064406 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.80.064406

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.80.064406 2009

  51. [51]

    Z. Fu, H. Xiang, X. Wang, et al., EPL112, 27003 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/112/27003

    work page doi:10.1209/0295-5075/112/27003 2015

  52. [52]

    V. V. Kostyuchenko and A. I. Popov, JETP107, 595 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1063776108100063

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063776108100063 2008

  53. [53]

    N. P. Konstantinidis, Phys. Rev. B66, 174426 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.66.174426

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.66.174426 2002

  54. [54]

    J. A. Plascak, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.468, 224 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2018.08.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmmm.2018.08.014 2018

  55. [55]

    V. K. Pecharsky, K. A. Gschneidner Jr., A. O. Pecharsky, and A. M. Tishin, Phys. Rev. B64, 144406 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.64.144406

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.64.144406 2001