Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Y2CuGe4O12 is a quasi-two-dimensional spin-1/2 distorted triangular-lattice antiferromagnet whose further-neighbor exchange bonds dominate its magnetism, keeping it disordered down to at least 0.4 K and fully polarizing in a 2.6-T field.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review

2026-08-03 01:58 UTC pith:4OH6BFHC

load-bearing objection A solid first characterization of a new frustrated magnet, but the magnon-gap g-factor inconsistency needs fixing before the field-polarized state claim is fully convincing. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.29676 v1 pith:4OH6BFHC submitted 2026-07-31 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Magnetic properties of a quasi-two-dimensional spin-1/2 antiferromagnet Y2CuGe4O12

J. Khatua , Changhyun Koo , Suyoung Kim , Eundeok Mun , Yugo Oshima , V. K. Sahu , Heung-Sik Kim , B. Koteswararao
show 2 more authors
Kwang-Yong Choi P. Khuntia
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords frustrated magnetismdistorted triangular latticespin-1/2 antiferromagnetfurther-neighbor exchangequasi-two-dimensional magnetfield-polarized statemagnetic specific heatY2CuGe4O12
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Y2CuGe4O12 is presented as a quasi-two-dimensional spin-1/2 magnet whose Cu2+ moments form a distorted triangular lattice, but the paper's key claim is that the magnetism is not controlled by the nearest-neighbor bonds: density-functional calculations put the nearest-neighbor coupling J1 at only +0.138 K (weakly ferromagnetic) while a much stronger antiferromagnetic third-neighbor coupling J3≈−3.22 K and an interplanar coupling J4≈−1.56 K dominate. Because ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic bonds nearly cancel, the Curie–Weiss temperature is tiny (−1.8 K), and the system shows no long-range order down to 0.4 K. Instead, broad maxima in susceptibility and specific heat indicate short-range correlations, and a modest 2.6 T field fully polarizes the moments, above which gapped magnon excitations appear. If correct, this makes YCGO a rare further-neighbor-dominated distorted triangular-lattice antiferromagnet and a platform for frustration-driven quantum phenomena.

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is the exchange hierarchy |J3|>|J4|>|J1|>|J2| in Y2CuGe4O12, established by combining powder x-ray structure determination with DFT+U exchange calculations: J1≈+0.138 K (nearest neighbor, 4.90 Å, ferromagnetic), J2≈+0.01 K (7.17 Å, ferromagnetic), J3≈−3.22 K (7.75 Å, antiferromagnetic), and J4≈−1.56 K (interplanar, 9.09 Å, antiferromagnetic). The paper argues that this spatially anisotropic set of competing interactions explains the measured small Curie–Weiss temperature (−1.8 K), the absence of long-range magnetic order down to at least 0.4 K, the broad maxima in susceptibility and specific heat (short-range correlations), the low saturation field 2.6 T, and th

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is the exchange-topology map of YCGO: a distorted triangular lattice within the ac-plane built from three inequivalent intraplanar bonds (J1, J2, J3) plus an interplanar bond J4, each assigned to a distinct Cu–Cu distance. The mechanism doing the work is exchange cancellation — strongly antiferromagnetic J3 and J4 nearly compensate the weakly ferromagnetic J1 and J2, yielding a small net energy scale that shows up as a small Curie–Weiss temperature, a low saturation field, and the suppression of long-range order. The DFT+U calculation supplies the signs and magnitudes of these couplings, while susceptibility, specific heat, magnetization, and ESR supply the macros

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the DFT+U calculation at U=8 eV has correctly assigned each Cu–Cu distance to a single exchange path and captured the hierarchy |J3|>|J4|>|J1|>|J2|, since neither the signs nor magnitudes of J1–J4 are directly measured and they change by roughly a factor of two across the U values considered.

What would settle it

A single-crystal neutron or muon-spin-rotation measurement detecting long-range magnetic order below 0.4 K, or an inelastic-neutron measurement of the exchange constants that does not find J3 antiferromagnetic and dominant over J4 and J1, would falsify the central claim.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • No long-range order appears down to at least 0.4 K, so the ground state below the broad maxima near 0.6–0.7 K remains to be identified; any true ordering must occur at even lower temperature.
  • Above the saturation field μ0Hs=2.6 T, the material enters a field-polarized phase whose magnetic specific heat is exponential, indicating gapped magnons; the gap grows linearly with field at 1.193 K/T, corresponding to g≈1.78.
  • The exchange hierarchy obtained from DFT accounts for the measured Curie–Weiss temperature (−2.32 K calculated vs −1.8 K measured) and the low saturation field, making YCGO, if the calculation is right, a rare further-neighbor-dominated distorted triangular-lattice magnet.
  • Below about 40 K, susceptibility deviates from the Curie–Weiss law and the ESR linewidth grows as a power law (T^-0.19), so short-range spin correlations develop well above the exchange scale—an expected fingerprint of a frustrated low-dimensional magnet.
  • The authors explicitly call for single-crystal thermodynamic and spectroscopic measurements to determine the magnetic ground state and to search for field-induced phases such as magnetization plateaus.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If the exchange constants are confirmed by experiment, YCGO could serve as a clean testbed for distorted-triangular-lattice models, since the near-cancellation of ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic bonds makes the magnetic state unusually sensitive to small changes — pressure or chemical substitution on the Ge/Y sites could drive it toward order or a quantum spin liquid.
  • Inference: The absence of order down to 0.4 K with |θ_CW|≈1.8 K implies a frustration ratio greater than about 4.5; a muon-spin-rotation or neutron measurement could test whether a hidden ordered state or spin freezing appears below 0.4 K.
  • Inference: The discrepancy between g≈2.25 from susceptibility and g≈1.78 from the magnon-gap slope may reflect powder averaging or anisotropic g; single-crystal ESR and torque measurements would settle whether the simple linear gap relation is exact.
  • Inference: The dominance of the long Cu–O–Ge–O–Ge–O–Cu pathway (J3) and the interplanar Y pathway (J4) suggests that the non-magnetic spacer ions are the real tuning knobs; a systematic substitution series varying Ge/Y would separate geometric from electronic contributions to superexchange.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a combined experimental and DFT study of the polycrystalline triclinic compound Y2CuGe4O12 (YCGO), in which Cu2+ ions form a distorted triangular lattice in the ac plane. Magnetic susceptibility shows a broad maximum near 0.7 K without a λ anomaly down to 0.4 K; specific heat displays a corresponding broad maximum; magnetization reaches ≈1.12 μB/f.u. with a saturation field μ0Hs ≈ 2.6 T; and above saturation the magnetic specific heat is interpreted as gapped magnon excitations with a linear field-dependent gap. DFT+U calculations yield ferromagnetic J1 ≈ 0.138 K and J2 ≈ 0.010 K, antiferromagnetic J3 ≈ −3.22 K and J4 ≈ −1.57 K at U = 8 eV, with the hierarchy |J3|>|J4|>|J1|>|J2|. The authors conclude that YCGO is a rare distorted-triangular-lattice magnet in which further-neighbor exchange interactions dominate the magnetic behavior and which hosts short-range correlations without long-range order down to at least 0.4 K.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, YCGO is a useful new member of the small family of low-energy frustrated quasi-two-dimensional spin-1/2 magnets, and the absence of long-range order combined with a low saturation field makes it a candidate for future single-crystal and neutron-scattering studies. The experimental phenomenology is internally coherent: broad maxima in χ and Cmag, no λ anomaly, and a low saturation field are mutually consistent. The DFT sign hierarchy is robust across U = 2–8 eV, which is a strength. However, the quantitative exchange model and the gapped-magnon interpretation are not yet on firm ground; the latter suffers from an unaddressed g-factor inconsistency, and the former relies on an arbitrary Hubbard-U choice. The work is thus a valuable characterization study whose main physical claim requires further validation.

major comments (1)
  1. [§III C, Eq. (1)] The magnetic specific heat is obtained by subtracting a Debye+Einstein lattice model in the absence of a nonmagnetic isostructural analog. The authors themselves note that the entropy below 0.4 K is missing and that an overestimated lattice contribution is one possible explanation. The exponential gapped-magnon fits above saturation are therefore sensitive to the lattice subtraction, yet the manuscript does not report the fit intervals, residuals, or the dependence of Δ on the fitted θD and θEi values. Given the g-factor discrepancy raised above, this is not a purely technical detail. Please provide the fit details and a sensitivity analysis, or reduce the weight placed on the exponential Cmag fits.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§III C, Fig. 4] The text refers to 'Fig. 4(d)' for the magnetic entropy change ΔS, but the entropy is shown in Fig. 3(d).
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says 'full squares' in one place and 'blue squares' in another; the symbol description should be consistent.
  3. [Introduction] Typo: 'lading to enhanced frustration' should be 'leading to enhanced frustration'. Also 'antiferomagnetic' appears in Sec. III B.
  4. [§III B] The choice of μ0H = 1 T for χ(T) and the subtraction of the diamagnetic contribution are stated, but the temperature-independent contribution χ0 = −3.889×10−4 cm3/mol includes only diamagnetism; a Van Vleck or other T-independent term is not discussed. Please clarify if this is included in χ0.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: DFT exchange couplings and thermodynamic/ESR analyses are independent; the g-factor inconsistency is a correctness risk rather than a constructional circularity.

full rationale

The central magnetic model comes from GGA+U DFT (Liechtenstein/JX) using the experimentally refined crystal structure, not from fits to susceptibility, specific heat, or ESR. The comparison θ_CW(DFT)=−2.32 K with θ_CW(low-T fit)=−1.80 K is a consistency cross-check, not a parameter fit; no fitted quantity is re-identified as a prediction. The U=8 eV choice is not explicitly justified, and the g-factors are internally inconsistent (g≈2.25 from the Curie constant and M_sat vs g≈1.78 from the magnon-gap slope), but these are uncertainties and calibration errors in the quantitative interpretation, not cases where the output is equivalent to the input by construction. The only notable self-citation near a quantitative statement, Ref. [5] for the gap-slope conversion Δ=gμB(μ0H−μ0Hs), is not load-bearing because the slope-to-g conversion is standard arithmetic. The manuscript itself flags limitations (missing entropy possibly reflecting overestimated C_latt; the ground state below Hs remains an open question), which weigh on confidence but do not establish circularity. No load-bearing premise is justified solely by a self-citation or by an ansatz imported from prior work by the same authors. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained; the weaknesses belong to correctness risk, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative model rests on DFT+U exchange parameters (with a chosen U), a lattice-subtraction model for C_mag, and the assumption that an isotropic J1-J4 Heisenberg model captures the physics. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Hubbard U = 8 eV (U=2, 4, 6, 8 considered)
    DFT+U exchange couplings J1-J4 depend strongly on U (Table II). The abstract and θ_CW comparison quote U=8 eV; the paper states no selection criterion, and the match to θ_LT improves with higher U, so the quoted exchange hierarchy is partly tied to this tunable parameter.
  • Lattice Debye-Einstein temperatures = θD=184 K, θE1=262 K, θE2=502 K, θE3=1236 K
    Equation (1) Debye+3-Einstein fit to C_p(T), with coefficients fixed by the atom count. The fit determines C_mag by subtraction and hence the broad maximum and the gapped-magnon analysis; no nonmagnetic analogue is available.
  • Curie-Weiss parameters = C=0.477 cm3 K/mol, θ_HT=-7.23 K, θ_LT=-1.80 K, χ0=-3.889e-4 cm3/mol
    Fitted to susceptibility data. The low-T θ_LT is used to benchmark the DFT θ_CW, so the numerical 'small θ_CW' claim depends on these fits.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption An isotropic Heisenberg model with exchange couplings J1-J4 captures the magnetism.
    Used to convert DFT J's into θ_CW and to interpret saturation and gap; no Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya or anisotropic exchange is included (Sec. III B, III C).
  • domain assumption DFT+U Liechtenstein J's are quantitatively reliable for this oxide.
    All quoted exchange constants come from OpenMX+JX; no experimental determination (e.g., inelastic neutron scattering) is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Each exchange J_i has coordination number z_i=2 in the θ_CW sum.
    Sec. III B uses z_i=2 for all four J_i; for the triclinic interplanar J4 network this is asserted, not derived from the crystal structure.
  • ad hoc to paper The magnetic specific heat is reliably isolated by Debye+Einstein lattice subtraction.
    Eq. (1) is used without a nonmagnetic analogue, and the authors note possible overestimation of the lattice contribution.
  • ad hoc to paper C_mag ~ exp(-Δ/kBT) describes gapped magnons in the field-polarized phase.
    Sec. III C uses this form to extract Δ; the magnon dispersion and prefactor are not specified, and the g from the slope conflicts with the ESR/CW g-factor.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 14732 in / 18412 out tokens · 187721 ms · 2026-08-03T01:58:55.954915+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Competing magnetic interactions and frustration-induced quantum fluctuations in spatially anisotropic low-dimensional magnets often give rise to exotic magnetic phenomena, including field-induced phases. Here, we present crystal structure, magnetic susceptibility, specific heat, and electron spin resonance (ESR) measurements on polycrystalline Y$2$CuGe$4$O${12}$, supported by density functional theory (DFT) calculations. In this compound, the Cu$^{2+}$ ions form a distorted triangular lattice with competing intraplanar ferromagnetic ($J_1 \approx 0.138$ K and $J_2 \approx 0.01$ K) and antiferromagnetic ($J_3 \approx -3.22$ K) exchange interactions, together with a weaker interplanar antiferromagnetic coupling ($J_4 \approx -1.56$ K). These interactions account for the small Curie--Weiss temperature, $\theta{\rm CW}=-1.8$ K. Despite the dominant antiferromagnetic interactions, no signature of long-range magnetic ordering is observed down to 0.4 K. Instead, broad maxima in both the magnetic susceptibility and magnetic specific heat reveal the development of short-range spin correlations, further supported by the critical ESR linewidth broadening characteristic of low-dimensional frustrated magnets. Application of an external magnetic field progressively suppresses the broad maximum in the magnetic specific heat, reflecting competition between the Zeeman and exchange energy scales, and drives the system into a field-polarized state above the saturation field, $\mu_0H_{\rm s}=2.6$ T. In this regime, the magnetic specific heat exhibits an exponential temperature dependence, consistent with gapped magnon excitations. These results establish Y$_2$CuGe$4$O${12}$ as a rare distorted triangular-lattice magnet in which further-neighbor exchange interactions dominate the magnetic behavior, providing a promising platform for exploring frustration-driven quantum phenomena.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29676 by B. Koteswararao, Changhyun Koo, Eundeok Mun, Heung-Sik Kim, J. Khatua, Kwang-Yong Choi, P. Khuntia, Suyoung Kim, V. K. Sahu, Yugo Oshima.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Rietveld refinement pattern of the room-temperature powder x-ray diffraction data of Y [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Temperature dependence of magnetic susceptibility, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Temperature dependence of the specific heat, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: summarizes the field-temperature phase dia￾gram of YCGO. The star symbols trace the broad maxi￾mum in Cmag(T) below µ0Hs, while the full squares rep￾resent the field dependence of the magnon gap in the field-polarized (FP) phase. While the precise nature of the ground state below µ0Hs remains an open question for future investigation, the extracted gap ∆ above satu￾ration exhibits a clear linear field depe… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) ESR spectra measured at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

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

54 extracted references

  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]

    Khatua, B

    J. Khatua, B. Sana, A. Zorko, M. Gomilˇ sek, K. Sethu- pathi, M. R. Rao, M. Baenitz, B. Schmidt, and P. Khuntia, Experimental signatures of quantum and topological states in frustrated magnetism, Phys. Rep. 1041, 1 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    Khuntia, M

    P. Khuntia, M. Velazquez, Q. Barth´ elemy, F. Bert, E. Kermarrec, A. Legros, B. Bernu, L. Messio, A. Zorko, and P. Mendels, Gapless ground state in the archetypal quantum kagome antiferromagnet ZnCu3(OH)6Cl2, Nat. Phys.16, 469 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    S. Jeon, D. Wulferding, Y. Choi, S. Lee, K. Nam, K. H. Kim, M. Lee, T.-H. Jang, J.-H. Park, S. Lee, S. Choi, C. Lee, H. Nojiri, and K.-Y. Choi, One-ninth magnetiza- tion plateau stabilized by spin entanglement in a kagome antiferromagnet, Nat. Phys.20, 435 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    Khatua, T

    J. Khatua, T. Kim, G. S. Murugan, S. M. Kumawat, C.- L. Huang, Y. Oshima, H. Nojiri, G. Morris, S. R. Dun- siger, H.-S. Kim, K. Sritharan, S. Mani, R. Sankar, and K.-Y. Choi, Multistage spin correlations in thes= 1 2 stuffed hyper-star lattice Li 2Cu2(MoO4)3, Phys. Rev. B 113, 104441 (2026)

    2026

  6. [6]

    Khuntia, F

    P. Khuntia, F. Bert, P. Mendels, B. Koteswararao, A. V. Mahajan, M. Baenitz, F. C. Chou, C. Baines, A. Amato, and Y. Furukawa, Spin liquid state in the 3d frustrated antiferromagnet PbCuTe2O6: Nmr and muon spin relax- ation studies, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 107203 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    D. A. Tennant, T. G. Perring, R. A. Cowley, and S. E. Nagler, Unbound spinons in the S = 1/2 antiferromag- netic chain KCuF3, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 4003 (1993)

    1993

  8. [8]

    Mourigal, M

    M. Mourigal, M. Enderle, A. Kl¨ opperpieper, J.-S. Caux, A. Stunault, and H. M. Rønnow, Fractional spinon ex- citations in the quantum heisenberg antiferromagnetic chain, Nat. Phys.9, 435 (2013)

    2013

  9. [9]

    R¨ uegg, N

    C. R¨ uegg, N. Cavadini, A. Furrer, H.-U. G¨ udel, K. Kr¨ amer, H. Mutka, A. Wildes, K. Habicht, and P. Vorderwisch, Bose–Einstein condensation of the triplet states in the magnetic insulator TlCuCl3, Nature423, 62 (2003)

    2003

  10. [10]

    Scheie, P

    A. Scheie, P. Laurell, A. M. Samarakoon, B. Lake, S. E. Nagler, G. E. Granroth, S. Okamoto, G. Alvarez, and D. A. Tennant, Witnessing entanglement in quantum magnets using neutron scattering, Phys. Rev. B103, 224434 (2021)

    2021

  11. [11]

    A. V. Syromyatnikov, Spin nematic phase in one- dimensional and quasi-one-dimensional frustrated mag- nets in a strong magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B86, 014423 (2012)

    2012

  12. [12]

    Sakai, H

    T. Sakai, H. Nakano, R. Furuchi, and K. Okamoto, Spin nematic liquid of the s = 1/2 distorted diamond spin chain in magnetic field, AIP Advances13, 015313 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    B¨ uttgen, K

    N. B¨ uttgen, K. Nawa, T. Fujita, M. Hagiwara, P. Kuhns, A. Prokofiev, A. P. Reyes, L. E. Svistov, K. Yoshimura, and M. Takigawa, Search for a spin-nematic phase in the quasi-one-dimensional frustrated magnet LiCuVO 4, Phys. Rev. B90, 134401 (2014)

    2014

  14. [14]

    M. Gen, D. Hirai, K. Morita, K. Nawa, S. Kogane, 10 N. Matsuyama, T. Yajima, M. Kawamura, K. Deguchi, A. Koda, M. Kofu, S. Ohira-Kawamura, T. J. Sato, A. Matsuo, K. Kindo, Y. Kohama, and Z. Hiroi, Chemi- cally tunable quantum magnetism on the anisotropic tri- angular lattice in rhenium oxyhalides, Nat. Commun.16, 9938 (2025)

    2025

  15. [15]

    L. Han, Z. Zeng, M. Long, M. Song, C. Zhou, B. Liu, M. Kofu, K. Nakajima, P. Steffens, A. Hiess, Z. Y. Meng, Y. Su, and S. Li, Spin excitations arising from anisotropic dirac spinons in YCu 3(OD)6Br2[Br0·33 (OD)0·67 ], Phys. Rev. B112, 045114 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    Zhang, Z

    H. Zhang, Z. Zhao, D. Gautreau, M. Raczkowski, A. Saha, V. O. Garlea, H. Cao, T. Hong, H. O. Jeschke, S. D. Mahanti, T. Birol, F. F. Assaad, and X. Ke, Coexis- tence and interaction of spinons and magnons in an anti- ferromagnet with alternating antiferromagnetic and fer- romagnetic quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 037204 (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

    Lemmens, K.-Y

    P. Lemmens, K.-Y. Choi, E. E. Kaul, C. Geibel, K. Becker, W. Brenig, R. Valenti, C. Gros, M. Johns- son, P. Millet, and F. Mila, Evidence for an unconven- tional magnetic instability in the spin-tetrahedra system Cu2Te2O5Br2, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 227201 (2001)

    2001

  18. [18]

    J. Yang, T. Xie, S. E. Nikitin, J. Wu, and A. Podlesnyak, Confinement of many-body bethe strings, Phys. Rev. B 108, L020402 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    Hayashi and M

    Y. Hayashi and M. Ogata, Possibility of gapless spin liq- uid state by one-dimensionalization, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 76, 053705 (2007)

    2007

  20. [20]

    ˇZivkovi´ c, D

    I. ˇZivkovi´ c, D. M. Djoki´ c, M. Herak, D. Paji´ c, K. Prˇ sa, P. Pattison, D. Dominko, Z. Mickovi´ c, D. Cinˇ ci´ c, L. Forr´ o, H. Berger, and H. M. Rønnow, Site-selective quantum correlations revealed by magnetic anisotropy in the tetramer system SeCuO 3, Phys. Rev. B86, 054405 (2012)

    2012

  21. [21]

    Testa, V

    L. Testa, V. ˇSurija, K. Prˇ sa, P. Steffens, M. Boehm, P. Bourges, H. Berger, B. Normand, H. M. Rønnow, and I. ˇZivkovi´ c, Triplons, magnons, and spinons in a sin- gle quantum spin system: SeCuO 3, Phys. Rev. B103, L020409 (2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    Rocquefelte, M

    X. Rocquefelte, M. Herak, A. Miyake, W. Lafargue-Dit- Hauret, H. Berger, M. Tokunaga, and A. Sa´ ul, Coherent description of the magnetic properties of SeCuO 3 ver- sus temperature and magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B107, 054407 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    Linder, M

    G.-G. Linder, M. Atanasov, and J. Pebler, A single- crystal study of the magnetic behavior and exchange coupling in Cu 2(OH)3NO3, J. Solid State Chem.116, 1 (1995)

    1995

  24. [24]

    L. Yuan, Y. Zhao, B. Li, Y. Song, Y. Xia, B. Liu, J. Wang, and Y. Li, Possible coexistence of short-range resonating valence bond and long-range stripe correla- tions in the spatially anisotropic triangular-lattice quan- tum magnet Cu 2(OH)3NO3, Phys. Rev. B106, 085119 (2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    Wulferding, S

    D. Wulferding, S. S. Islam, Y. Choi, G. Ban, S. Lee, A. Pawbake, C. Faugeras, and K.-Y. Choi, Field- and temperature-driven magnetic excitations in rouaite Cu2(OH)3NO3, Phys. Rev. B111, 064409 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    K. M. Ranjith, R. Nath, M. Skoulatos, L. Keller, D. Kasi- nathan, Y. Skourski, and A. A. Tsirlin, Collinear order in the frustrated three-dimensional spin− 1 2 antiferromagnet Li2CuW2O8, Phys. Rev. B92, 094426 (2015)

    2015

  27. [27]

    ´Alvarez-Vega, J

    M. ´Alvarez-Vega, J. Rodr´ ıguez-Carvajal, J. G. Reyes- C´ ardenas, A. F. Fuentes, and U. Amador, Synthe- sis and characterization of new double tungstates Li2MII(WO4)2 (M = Co, Ni, and Cu), Chem. Mater.13, 3871 (2001)

    2001

  28. [28]

    Thamban, C

    S. Thamban, C. Aguilar-Maldonado, S. Chillal, R. Fey- erherm, K. Prokeˇ s, A. J. Studer, D. Abou-Ras, K. Kar- makar, A. T. M. N. Islam, and B. Lake, Crystal growth and magnetic properties of spin-1/2 distorted triangular lattice antiferromagnet CuLa2Ge2O8, Phys. Rev. Mater. 10, 054403 (2026)

    2026

  29. [29]

    H. Cho, M. Kratochv´ ılov´ a, H. Sim, K.-Y. Choi, C. H. Kim, C. Paulsen, M. Avdeev, D. C. Peets, Y. Jo, S. Lee, Y. Noda, M. J. Lawler, and J.-G. Park, Properties of spin- 1 2 triangular-lattice antiferromagnets CuY 2Ge2O8 and CuLa2Ge2O8, Phys. Rev. B95, 144404 (2017)

    2017

  30. [30]

    Ye and A

    M. Ye and A. V. Chubukov, Quantum phase transitions in the heisenbergJ 1−J 2 triangular antiferromagnet in a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B95, 014425 (2017)

    2017

  31. [31]

    Szasz and J

    A. Szasz and J. Motruk, Phase diagram of the anisotropic triangular lattice hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B103, 235132 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    Harada, Numerical study of incommensurability of the spiral state on spin- 1 2 spatially anisotropic trian- gular antiferromagnets using entanglement renormaliza- tion, Phys

    K. Harada, Numerical study of incommensurability of the spiral state on spin- 1 2 spatially anisotropic trian- gular antiferromagnets using entanglement renormaliza- tion, Phys. Rev. B86, 184421 (2012)

    2012

  33. [33]

    A. C. Jacko, L. F. Tocchio, H. O. Jeschke, and R. Va- lent´ ı, Importance of anisotropy in the spin-liquid can- didate Me 3EtSb[Pd(dmit)2]2, Phys. Rev. B88, 155139 (2013)

    2013

  34. [34]

    O. A. Starykh and L. Balents, Ordering in spatially anisotropic triangular antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 077205 (2007)

    2007

  35. [35]

    Ozaki, Variationally optimized atomic orbitals for large-scale electronic structures, Phys

    T. Ozaki, Variationally optimized atomic orbitals for large-scale electronic structures, Phys. Rev. B67, 155108 (2003)

    2003

  36. [36]

    H. Yoon, T. J. Kim, J.-H. Sim, and M. J. Han, Jx: An open-source software for calculating magnetic inter- actions based on magnetic force theory, Comput. Phys. Commun.247, 106927 (2020)

    2020

  37. [37]

    B. H. Toby,EXPGUI, a graphical user interface for GSAS, J. Appl. Crystallogr.34, 210 (2001)

    2001

  38. [38]

    Cascales and M

    C. Cascales and M. Monge, Crystal structure and influ- ence of the rare-earth on the magnetic structure of cop- per germanates R2CuGe4O12, J. Alloys Compd.344, 379 (2002), proceedings of the Rare Earths‘ 2001 Conference

    2002

  39. [39]

    Cascales, M

    C. Cascales, M. T. Fern´ andez D´Iaz, and M. A. Monge, Low-temperature magnetic ordering in rare-earth copper germanates R2CuGe4O12, R = Ho, Er, Chem. Mater.12, 3369 (2000)

    2000

  40. [40]

    Sande, J

    M. Sande, J. Khatua, Y. Choi, and K.-Y. Choi, Tun- ing magnetic correlations ins= 1/2 spin ladder Ba2CuTe1 –xWxO6 through site-selective cation substitu- tion, Phys. Rev. Mater.8, 094404 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    Vasala, H

    S. Vasala, H. Saadaoui, E. Morenzoni, O. Chmaissem, T.-S. Chan, J.-M. Chen, Y.-Y. Hsu, H. Yamauchi, and M. Karppinen, Characterization of magnetic properties of Sr2CuWO6, Phys. Rev. B89, 134419 (2014)

    2014

  42. [42]

    J. C. Bonner and M. E. Fisher, Linear magnetic chains with anisotropic coupling, Phys. Rev.135, A640 (1964)

    1964

  43. [43]

    Tokiwa, T

    Y. Tokiwa, T. Radu, R. Coldea, H. Wilhelm, Z. Tyl- czynski, and F. Steglich, Magnetic phase transitions in the two-dimensional frustrated quantum antiferromagnet 11 Cs2CuCl4, Phys. Rev. B73, 134414 (2006)

    2006

  44. [44]

    Khatua, S

    J. Khatua, S. Lee, G. Ban, M. Uhlarz, G. S. Muru- gan, R. Sankar, B. Hitti, G. Morris, K.-Y. Choi, and P. Khuntia, Magnetism and spin dynamics of thes= 3 2 frustrated trillium lattice compound K 2CrTi(PO4)3, Phys. Rev. B109, 184432 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    G. A. Bain and J. F. Berry, Diamagnetic corrections and pascal’s constants, J. Chem. Educ.85, 532 (2008)

    2008

  46. [46]

    Stoll and A

    S. Stoll and A. Schweiger, Easyspin, a comprehensive software package for spectral simulation and analysis in epr, J. Magn. Reson.178, 42 (2006)

    2006

  47. [47]

    Kubo and K

    R. Kubo and K. Tomita, A general theory of magnetic resonance absorption, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.9, 888 (1954)

    1954

  48. [48]

    Oshikawa and I

    M. Oshikawa and I. Affleck, Electron spin resonance in s= 1 2 antiferromagnetic chains, Phys. Rev. B65, 134410 (2002)

    2002

  49. [49]

    Choukroun, J.-L

    J. Choukroun, J.-L. Richard, and A. Stepanov, High- temperature electron paramagnetic resonance in magnets with the dzyaloshinskii-moriya interaction, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 127207 (2001)

    2001

  50. [50]

    Huber and M

    D. Huber and M. Seehra, Contribution of the spin- phonon interaction to the paramagnetic resonance linewidth of CrBr 3, J. Phys. Chem. Solids.36, 723 (1975)

    1975

  51. [51]

    Heinrich, H.-A

    M. Heinrich, H.-A. Krug von Nidda, A. Krimmel, A. Loidl, R. M. Eremina, A. D. Ineev, B. I. Kochelaev, A. V. Prokofiev, and W. Assmus, Structural and mag- netic properties of CuSb2O6 probed by esr, Phys. Rev. B 67, 224418 (2003)

    2003

  52. [52]

    M. V. Eremin, D. V. Zakharov, H.-A. K. von Nidda, R. M. Eremina, A. Shuvaev, A. Pimenov, P. Ghigna, J. Deisenhofer, and A. Loidl, Dynamical dzyaloshinsky- moriya interaction in kcuf3, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 147601 (2008)

    2008

  53. [53]

    Werner, C

    J. Werner, C. Koo, R. Klingeler, A. N. Vasiliev, Y. A. Ovchenkov, A. S. Polovkova, G. V. Raganyan, and E. A. Zvereva, Magnetic anisotropy and the phase diagram of chiral MnSb2O6, Phys. Rev. B94, 104408 (2016)

    2016

  54. [54]

    Lee, W.-J

    S. Lee, W.-J. Lee, J. van Tol, P. L. Kuhns, A. P. Reyes, H. Berger, and K.-Y. Choi, Anomalous spin dynamics in the coupled spin tetramer system CuSeO 3, Phys. Rev. B 95, 054405 (2017)

    2017

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.