Magnetic and crystal electric field excitations in a spin-orbit coupled frustrated hyperkagome magnet Nd$_3$Li$_3$W$_2$O$_{12}$

Indrajeet S. Rathore; M. D. Le; N. B. Christensen; R. Kolay; R. Nath; S. Guchhait; S. Nandi

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Magnetic and crystal electric field excitations in a spin-orbit coupled frustrated hyperkagome magnet Nd$_3$Li$_3$W$_2$O$_{12}$

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Inelastic neutron scattering maps the five crystal-field doublets of Nd3Li3W2O12 and shows the low-temperature ground state is an effective spin-1/2 Kramers doublet.

desk verdict A genuinely new data set for a previously uncharacterized hyperkagome magnet, with a solid J_eff=1/2 assignment but a CEF parameter set that is less unique than the paper suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03365 v1 pith:XMPBVFV7 submitted 2026-08-04 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

R. Kolay , S. Guchhait , Indrajeet S. Rathore , S. Nandi , M. D. Le , N. B. Christensen , R. Nath This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords hyperkagomelatticecrystalelectricfieldinelasticneutronscatteringKramersdoubleteffectivespin-1/2frustratedmagnetismgarnetNd3Li3W2O12

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

This paper studies Nd3Li3W2O12, a garnet whose Nd3+ ions form a three-dimensional frustrated hyperkagome network. It claims that the crystal electric field splits the Nd3+ J=9/2 multiplet into five Kramers doublets, with the lowest doublet at least 9.3 meV below the first excited one, so at low temperatures the material behaves as an effective spin-1/2 magnet with weak antiferromagnetic interactions. The evidence is a simultaneous fit to inelastic neutron scattering data at 6, 100, and 250 K, producing a crystal-field Hamiltonian that also reproduces the measured susceptibility, magnetization isotherms, and field-dependent heat capacity. If correct, the compound is a clean single-ion spin-1/2 hyperkagome system with no magnetic order down to 0.1 K, making it a candidate for exploring frustration-driven quantum ground states.

What carries the argument

The central object is the crystal-electric-field Hamiltonian written in Stevens operators, with nine parameters ($B2^{0}$, $B2^{2}$, $B4^{0}$, $B4^{2}$, $B4^{4}$, $B6^{0}$, $B6^{2}$, $B6^{4}$, $B6^{6}$) appropriate for D2 point symmetry. It is fitted simultaneously to the energy and intensity of neutron scattering excitations at three temperatures. Because nine parameter sets fit the neutron data equally well, the measured susceptibility, magnetization, and heat capacity are used to select one set. Diagonalizing the chosen Hamiltonian gives the five doublet energies and their wavefunctions, which in turn generate the crystal-field contributions to the thermodynamic quantities.

What would settle it

Grow single crystals and measure the low-temperature magnetization along three orthogonal axes: the paper predicts gx=2.66, gy=1.99, and gz=1.32, so a mismatch in the observed anisotropy would rule out the selected crystal-field set. A neutron diffraction search below 0.1 K would also directly test whether magnetic long-range order actually appears at lower temperatures.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that in Nd3Li3W2O12 the Nd3+ ion sits in a D2-symmetric crystal-field environment that splits the J=9/2 multiplet into five Kramers doublets (pairs of degenerate states protected by time-reversal symmetry) at energies 0, 9.3, 21.9, 25.6, and 91.8 meV. The lowest doublet is well separated and behaves as an effective spin 1/2 with anisotropic g-values gx=2.66, gy=1.99, and gz=1.32. A nine-parameter crystal-field Hamiltonian fitted to the neutron spectra reproduces the measured magnetic susceptibility, isotherms, heat capacity, and magnetic entropy, including the field-induced Schottky anomalies. No magnetic long-range order is observed down to 0.1 K, and the authors inter

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on choosing one of nine crystal-field parameter sets that fit the neutron data equally well; if the way the heat capacity and magnetization are corrected for phonon and non-spin magnetic backgrounds is biased, a different set would be selected and the wavefunctions, g-values, and effective-spin-1/2 conclusion would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Below temperatures of order 100 K, the 9.3 meV gap to the first excited doublet means the magnetic properties are governed by a single Kramers doublet, so the hyperkagome lattice can be modeled as coupled effective spin-1/2 moments.
The same crystal-field scheme reproduces both the high-temperature Schottky anomaly and the field-dependent low-temperature heat capacity, so it can predict thermodynamic behavior at fields and temperatures not directly measured.
The absence of magnetic long-range order down to 0.1 K, despite antiferromagnetic correlations developing near 2 K, indicates strong frustration on the hyperkagome network and makes the compound a candidate for a disordered or exotic ground state.
The computed g-tensor is strongly anisotropic, so any future low-energy spin model must include substantial anisotropy rather than simple Heisenberg exchange.

Reading between the lines

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

Single-crystal neutron or optical measurements could resolve the nine-fold degeneracy in the crystal-field fit, since powder data alone cannot distinguish the parameter sets; the paper's thermodynamic tie-break is reasonable but not unique.
If the anisotropic g-tensor is confirmed, Nd3Li3W2O12 becomes a direct test bed for anisotropic exchange and quantum tunneling effects on a three-dimensional frustrated lattice, not just another effective Heisenberg spin-1/2 magnet.
A lanthanum-based nonmagnetic analog would provide a cleaner phonon subtraction than the multi-Debye fit used here and could sharpen the heat-capacity comparison in the 10-100 K range.
Measurements below 0.1 K, such as muon-spin rotation or neutron diffraction, could distinguish a true quantum spin liquid from a state with a very small ordered moment or a very low ordering temperature, a distinction the current data leave open.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is the first magnetic and CEF characterization of Nd3Li3W2O12, and the directly observed INS excitations make a convincing case for a J_eff=1/2 Kramers doublet ground state with a ~9 meV gap and no magnetic order down to 0.1 K. The one caveat worth remembering is that the CEF parameter set in Table I is not unique; the paper picks it from nine equally good INS fits using the same bulk data that are later presented as confirmation.

The new data are real: powder XRD shows a clean garnet phase; magnetization, heat capacity, and INS on MARI cover the right temperature and energy ranges. The four CEF excitations at 9.3, 21.9, 25.6, and 91.8 meV are directly visible, and the thermodynamic probes independently support a low-energy doublet: low-T Curie-Weiss, saturation magnetization ~1.1 mu_B/Nd, Schottky gap, and entropy release to R ln 2. The two-level CW fit gives Δ/k_B ~93 K, consistent with the INS gap. That is a coherent story. I also appreciate that the authors state plainly that nine parameter sets fit the INS equally well and that they used the bulk data to break the tie. That is honest, and it is the right instinct; the problem is that the same bulk data then cannot be used as independent validation.

Where it gets soft: the selection procedure in Sec. IIID is a discrete fit, not a confirmation. The other eight parameter sets are not reported, so we cannot judge whether the thermodynamic data actually discriminate among them or whether a different choice would change the wavefunctions and g-tensor components. The reported g-values (gx=2.66, gy=1.99, gz=1.32) and the ground-state wavefunction in Eq. 7 are therefore tied to one arbitrary choice among nine equally good INS fits. The paper gives no uncertainties on the CEF parameters; given the degeneracy, that omission is load-bearing. This does not threaten the energy levels themselves, which are direct observables, nor the J_eff=1/2 conclusion, which is robust across bulk probes. But it means the detailed single-ion model, Tables I and II, should be treated as plausible rather than definitive.

Who this is for: anyone working on rare-earth frustrated magnets, hyperkagome lattices, or CEF analysis of powder INS data. A serious referee can handle it; the paper deserves revision, not rejection. The authors should be asked to report the other eight fits, quantify how much the bulk data disfavor them, and add uncertainties or at least a sensitivity statement. If they can show that only one set survives the thermodynamic filter within error, the paper becomes much stronger. Even as it stands, the basic physical picture is likely right, and the new compound is a worthwhile addition to the small family of rare-earth hyperkagome magnets with a well-characterized low-energy description. I would send it to review and ask for the missing analysis rather than desk-reject.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports bulk magnetization, heat-capacity, and powder inelastic-neutron-scattering (INS) measurements on the previously unexplored hyperkagome garnet Nd3Li3W2O12. Four non-dispersive CEF excitations are observed at about 9.3, 21.9, 25.6, and 91.8 meV and are attributed to transitions from a Kramers ground doublet to excited doublets. A nine-parameter D2-symmetric Stevens CEF Hamiltonian is fitted simultaneously to INS spectra at 6, 100, and 250 K. The authors report that nine distinct parameter sets reproduce the INS data equally well, and they select one set by comparing calculated susceptibility, magnetization, and heat capacity with experiment. They then present the selected set as reproducing those same bulk data, provide CEF eigenfunctions and g-tensor components, and conclude that the low-temperature physics is governed by a J_eff = 1/2 Kramers doublet with a ~9 meV gap. No magnetic long-range order is found down to 0.1 K.

Significance. If the CEF model is considered established, the paper is a useful single-ion reference for a new Nd-based frustrated garnet and adds to the small family of hyperkagome magnets with a well-defined low-energy spin-1/2 description. The directly observed INS level energies and the temperature-dependent intensity evolution are valuable, and the bulk probes (low-T Curie-Weiss, saturation magnetization, Schottky gap, entropy) independently corroborate a J_eff = 1/2 ground state. However, the specific CEF parameter set, the associated wavefunctions, and the g-tensor anisotropy are not independently determined, because the same thermodynamic data used for selection are later presented as validation. The nine-fold ambiguity and the absence of parameter uncertainties therefore weaken the stronger single-ion-model claims while leaving the main physical conclusion—an effective spin-1/2 low-temperature description—largely intact.

major comments (4)

[Sec. IIID] The CEF parameter set is underdetermined by INS: the text states that '9 distinct sets of CEF parameters reproduce the INS data equally well', but only one set (Table I) is shown. The selection among the nine sets is made by comparing calculated χ(T), M(H), and Cmag(T) with the experimental bulk data in Sec. IIID. The later statement that the model 'reproduces' these data (Figs. 5–7, abstract) is therefore a discrete selection artifact, not an independent validation. The authors should report all nine parameter sets, or at least the spread of their predicted bulk properties, and show explicitly whether the bulk data discriminate among them. Without this, the uniqueness of the wavefunctions, the g-tensor components (Eq. 7, Table II), and the claim that the fitted Hamiltonian is the correct single-ion model are not established. This concern does not affect the directly observed level energ
[Table I and Sec. IIID] No uncertainties are reported for the CEF parameters, and the derived g-values are quoted with error bars (gx = 2.66(1), gy = 1.99(1), gz = 1.32(1)) without any stated propagation. Given that nine parameter sets fit the INS data equally well, the true uncertainty in the g-tensor components is likely much larger than the quoted last-digit errors. The authors should provide parameter uncertainties from the fitting procedure or from the distribution over the nine acceptable solutions, and avoid over-precise digits unless justified. This is needed to assess the significance of the reported anisotropy.
[Sec. IIIB, Eq. (4)] The magnetic heat capacity Cmag is obtained by subtracting a phonon background modeled with four Debye temperatures, with no nonmagnetic analog to constrain the fit. Since Cmag(T) is one of the bulk quantities used to select among the nine INS-equivalent CEF parameter sets, an error or bias in the phonon subtraction could change the selected solution and hence the derived wavefunctions and g-tensor. The authors should include a sensitivity analysis (e.g., varying the Debye temperatures within their fit uncertainties) or otherwise demonstrate that the selection among the nine sets is robust to the phonon-model choice.
[Secs. IIID and IV] The claim that the CEF model 'reproduces' the experimental χ(T), M(H), and Cmag(T) is overstated for the reason given in the first major comment. The paper should distinguish clearly between (i) the directly measured CEF level energies and their temperature evolution, which are robust, and (ii) the specific parameter-set validation, which is a selection procedure using the same data. The wording in the abstract and Section IV should be tempered accordingly.

minor comments (5)

[Appendix A] The title 'Steven operators' should read 'Stevens operators' (also in the main text where the same misspelling appears).
[Sec. II] 'Gd chopper frequency of 400 Hz' is presumably a typo for the Fermi/bandwidth chopper frequency used on MARI; please check and correct.
[Appendix B, Eq. (9)] The symbol g in MCEF = NA g μB Σ ... is not defined. It should be the Landé g-factor gJ, and the powder averaging over orientations should be stated explicitly, since a single orientation expression is shown.
[Appendix B, Eq. (10)] The denominator '(ZkBT)^2' is typeset ambiguously as 'ZkBT);' it should be '(Z k_B T)^2'. Also define the indexing convention for Em and En.
[Sec. IIIA] Equation (2) would benefit from a parenthetical note that μ_eff,0 and μ_eff,1 are powder-averaged effective moments, since the text otherwise mixes single-ion g-tensor language with the powder expression.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

CEF parameter set selected using the same bulk data later claimed as validation; measured INS levels remain independent.

fitted input called prediction [Sec. IIID (CEF analysis), paragraph on selection among nine INS fits; echoed in Abstract and Sec. IV]
"We obtained 9 distinct sets of CEF parameters that reproduce the INS data equally well. To further constrain the solution, the calculated powder magnetic susceptibility [χCEF(T,H)], magnetization [MCEF(T,H)], and heat capacity [CCEF(T,H)] data, corresponding to each parameter set were compared with the experimental data. The parameter set exhibiting the best overall agreement with the experimental data was eventually selected."

The bulk susceptibility, magnetization, and heat capacity are used as the selection criterion to pick one of the nine CEF parameter sets that equally fit the INS spectra. The later claim that the chosen CEF model 'reproduces' these same bulk data is therefore not an independent test: the selected set was chosen precisely for its agreement with those data. Because the other eight sets are not shown, one cannot tell whether the thermodynamic data actually discriminate among the solutions. This does not affect the directly observed INS peak energies (9.3, 21.9, 25.6, 91.8 meV) or the J_eff = 1/2 ground-state conclusion, but it weakens the validation of the specific Hamiltonian and g-tensor as an out-of-sample prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central spectroscopic result is self-contained and not circular: the four CEF excitations are observed directly in low-Q INS data, and the ~9 meV gap supports a Kramers doublet ground state independently. The circularity is limited to the thermodynamic validation of the fitted CEF parameter set. Nine parameter sets fit the INS equally well (Sec. IIID); the authors selected the one whose calculated χ, M(H), and Cmag agreed best with experiments, then presented the agreement of those same bulk data as confirmation ('reproduces the experimental data nicely'). That is a discrete fit/selection step, not an independent prediction. The paper also relies on standard Stevens-operator formalism, not on a self-citation chain; the self-citations for two-level CW and Schottky models are methodological and not load-bearing. The acknowledged non-uniqueness (nine INS-equivalent sets) plus the absence of parameter uncertainties means the specific CEF parameters and g-tensor components are not uniquely established, but the measured level scheme and the low-energy effective spin-1/2 description remain robust.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core model is a 9-parameter CEF Hamiltonian. The parameters are fit to INS and then pruned by the same thermodynamic data used for later validation. Auxiliary fits (Curie-Weiss, Debye phonons, Schottky) feed into the comparison but not into the CEF Hamiltonian itself. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

9 Stevens CEF parameters B_l^m = B02 = -0.1422, B22 = -1.0851, B04 = -0.0052, B24 = 0.0302, B44 = 0.0689, B06 = 0.0003, B26 = -0.0002, B46 = -0.0011, B66
Fitted to INS spectra at 6, 100, 250 K; these determine the energy levels, wavefunctions, and g-tensor.
Two-level CW model parameters: μ_eff,0, μ_eff,1, Δ_CEF/kB = 2.32(2) μB, 3.97(2) μB, 92.95(1) K (Sec. IIIA)
Fitted to χ(T) over the full temperature range; Δ_CEF is claimed to agree with the INS gap.
Four Debye temperatures for phonon subtraction = θD(Li)=1000(3) K, θD(O)=620(2) K, θD(Nd)=300(2) K, θD(W)=155(1) K (Sec. IIIB)
Fitted to high-T Cp; used to extract Cmag that is compared to the CEF heat capacity.
Schottky molar fraction f and Zeeman gap Δ/kB = f from Eq. (5) fits; Δ/kB = 13.2 K at 9 T (Sec. IIIB inset)
Fitted to field-dependent Cmag; used to extract g = 2.2(2).

assumptions (5)

standard math The ground multiplet of Nd3+ is J = 9/2 with g_J = 8/11 and LS coupling.
Used in Sec. IIIA for the free-ion moment and in Sec. IIID as the basis for the Stevens operator calculation.
domain assumption The CEF Hamiltonian with D2 point group symmetry, Eq. (6), with all nine Stevens operators up to l = 6, is the correct single-ion model.
Invoked in Sec. IIID; standard for rare earths at low symmetry sites, but no independent verification of the point charge environment is provided.
domain assumption The four observed nondispersive excitations (9.5, 22, 25.5, 90 meV) are magnetic CEF transitions, not phonons or two-magnon processes; phonon backgrounds are removed by scaling high-Q data to low-Q.
Sec. IIIC: low-Q intensity and lack of dispersion justify the assignment; the scaling subtraction assumes the phonon line shape is identical in both Q windows.
ad hoc to paper Among the nine CEF parameter sets that fit INS equally well, the set that best reproduces the measured χ(T), M(H), and Cmag(T) is the physically correct one.
Sec. IIID states this selection procedure; this is the paper's key tie-breaker and is not independently justified.
domain assumption Powder averaging of the anisotropic CEF response reproduces the measured isotropic susceptibility and magnetization.
The simulations in Appendix B are compared with powder data without explicit orientation-distribution weighting.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic and crystal electric field excitations in a spin-orbit coupled frustrated hyperkagome magnet Nd$_3$Li$_3$W$_2$O$_{12}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XMPBVFV7

@misc{pith2026260803365,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic and crystal electric field excitations in a spin-orbit coupled frustrated hyperkagome magnet Nd$_3$Li$_3$W$_2$O$_12$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XMPBVFV7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03365}
}

abstract

Rare-earth based garnets provide a viable platform for studying the frustrated driven magnetic properties of the hyperkagome lattices. Herein, we report a comprehensive study of the magnetic properties and crystal electric field (CEF) scheme of a new Nd$^{3+}$ based hyperkagome antiferromagnet, Nd$_3$Li$_3$W$_2$O$_{12}$ belonging to the garnet family via magnetization, heat capacity, and inelastic neutron scattering (INS) measurements. Magnetization measurement reveals a dominant antiferromagnetic interaction with a low temperature Curie-Weiss temperature $\theta_{\rm CW}^{\rm LT} \simeq -0.2$ K. Two broad maxima are observed in the magnetic heat capacity data under magnetic fields, implying multilevel Schottky anomalies due to the effect of CEF and display a two-step magnetic entropy release. No magnetic long-range order is observed down to 0.1 K. The CEF excitations of the Nd$^{3+}$ ($J=9/2$) ion with $D_2$ point group symmetry, probed via INS experiments, show non-dispersive excitations characterizing the transitions among the CEF energy levels. The simultaneous fit of the INS spectra at different temperatures enabled the mapping of the CEF Hamiltonian and the energy eigenvalues of the Kramers' doublets. The simulation using the obtained CEF parameters reproduces the experimental magnetic susceptibility, magnetic isotherms, and magnetic heat capacity data. The thermodynamic properties and INS-derived crystal-field scheme confirm a Kramers' doublet ground state with an effective spin $J_{\rm eff} = 1/2$ at low temperatures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03365 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (b). The energy gap ∆/kB follows a linear behavior with field. Using the value of ∆/kB ≃ 13.2 K at 9 T in ∆/kB = gµBH/kB, the g-value is estimated to be 2.2(2), which is closely aligned with the value obtained from the magnetization analysis. This further confirms that the observed Schottky effect in the heat capacity arises from the ground-state Kramers’ doublet with Jeff = 1/2. C. Inelastic Neutron Scattering In o… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a-d) Raw INS spectra of Nd [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The INS spectral intensity (after subtraction of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Schematic representation of CEF energy level sch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

[1]

Savary and L

L. Savary and L. Balents, Quantum spin liquids: a re- view, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 016502 (2016)

2016
[2]

S. T. Bramwell and M. J. P. Gingras, Spin Ice State in Frustrated Magnetic Pyrochlore Materials, Science 294, 1495 (2001)

work page 2001
[3]

O. A. Starykh, Unusual ordered phases of highly frustrated magnets: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, 052502 (2015)

2015
[4]

J. G. Rau and M. J. Gingras, Frus- trated Quantum Rare-Earth Pyrochlores, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 10, 357 (2019)

work page 2019
[5]

J. N. Graham, N. Qureshi, C. Ritter, P. Manuel, A. R. Wildes, and L. Clark, Experimental Ev- idence for the Spiral Spin Liquid in LiYbO 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 166703 (2023)

work page 2023
[6]

Here, Ck,± mJ are the weighted coeﬃcients that quantify the contribution of each ( |J = 9/2,m J⟩) basis state to the corresponding eigenfunction

The eigen functions associated with the Kramers doublets can be expressed as linear superpositions of the basis states, |ψk, ±⟩ = ∑ mJ =9/2 mJ =−9/2Ck,± mJ |J = 9/2,m J⟩. Here, Ck,± mJ are the weighted coeﬃcients that quantify the contribution of each ( |J = 9/2,m J⟩) basis state to the corresponding eigenfunction. The complete set of CEF energy eigen- va...

work page 1920
[7]

M. M. Bordelon, E. Kenney, C. Liu, T. Hogan, L. Posthuma, M. Kavand, Y. Lyu, M. Sherwin, N. P. Butch, C. Brown, M. J. Graf, L. Balents, and S. D. Wilson, Field-tunable quantum disordered ground state in the triangular-lattice antiferromagnet NaYbO 2, Nat. Phys. 15, 1058 (2019)

2019
[8]

Y. Li, D. Adroja, R. I. Bewley, D. Voneshen, A. A. Tsir- lin, P. Gegenwart, and Q. Zhang, Crystalline Electric- Field Randomness in the Triangular Lattice Spin-Liquid YbMgGaO4, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 107202 (2017)

work page 2017

Show all 57 references

[9]

Sibille, N

R. Sibille, N. Gauthier, H. Yan, M. Ciomaga Hat- nean, J. Ollivier, B. Winn, U. Filges, G. Balakrishnan, M. Kenzelmann, N. Shannon, and T. Fennell, Experi- mental signatures of emergent quantum electrodynamics in Pr 2Hf2O7, Nat. Phys. 14, 711 (2018)

2018
[10]

Guchhait, A

S. Guchhait, A. Painganoor, S. S. Islam, J. Sichelschmidt, M. D. Le, M. Aouane, N. B. Christensen, and R. Nath, Magnetic and crys- tal electric ﬁeld studies of the rare earth based square lattice antiferromagnet NdKNaNbO 5, Phys. Rev. B 110, 144434 (2024)

2024
[11]

Zhang, M

Z. Zhang, M. Shu, M. Xie, W. Zhuo, Y. Cai, C. Balz, J. Ji, F. Jin, J. Ma, and Q. Zhang, Emer- gent Dispersive Multipolar Excitations in NaErSe 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 256503 (2025)

2025
[12]

K. M. Ranjith, D. Dmytriieva, S. Khim, J. Sichelschmidt, S. Luther, D. Ehlers, H. Yasuoka, J. Wosnitza, A. A. Tsirlin, H. K¨ uhne, and M. Baenitz, Field-induced in- stability of the quantum spin liquid ground state in the Jeﬀ = 1 2 triangular-lattice compound NaYbO 2, Phys. Re...

2019
[13]

Yamamoto, M

R. Yamamoto, M. D. Le, D. T. Adroja, Y. Shimura, T. Takabatake, and T. Onimaru, Inelastic neutron scat- tering study of crystalline electric ﬁeld excitations in the caged compounds Nd T2Zn20(T = Co , Rh, andIr), 12 Phys. Rev. B 107, 075114 (2023)

2023
[14]

J. G. Rau and M. J. P. Gingras, Magni- tude of quantum eﬀects in classical spin ices, Phys. Rev. B 92, 144417 (2015)

2015
[15]

Tomasello, C

B. Tomasello, C. Castelnovo, R. Moessner, and J. Quin- tanilla, Single-ion anisotropy and magnetic ﬁeld response in the spin-ice materials Ho 2Ti2O7 and Dy 2Ti2O7, Phys. Rev. B 92, 155120 (2015)

2015
[16]

S. Gao, F. Xiao, K. Kamazawa, K. Ikeuchi, D. Biner, K. W. Kr¨ amer, C. R¨ uegg, and T.-h. Arima, Crystal elec- tric ﬁeld excitations in the quantum spin liquid candidate NaErS2, Phys. Rev. B 102, 024424 (2020)

2020
[17]

Scheie, V

A. Scheie, V. O. Garlea, L. D. Sanjeewa, J. Xing, and A. S. Sefat, Crystal-ﬁeld Hamiltonian and anisotropy in KErSe2 and CsErSe 2, Phys. Rev. B 101, 144432 (2020)

2020
[18]

R. Bag, S. Xu, N. E. Sherman, L. Yadav, A. I. Kolesnikov, A. A. Podlesnyak, E. S. Choi, I. da Silva, J. E. Moore, and S. Haravifard, Evi- dence of Dirac Quantum Spin Liquid in YbZn 2GaO5, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 266703 (2024)

2024
[19]

Clark, G

L. Clark, G. Sala, D. D. Maharaj, M. B. Stone, K. S. Knight, M. T. F. Telling, X. Wang, X. Xu, J. Kim, Y. Li, S.-W. Cheong, and B. D. Gaulin, Two-dimensional spin liquid behaviour in the triangular-honeycomb antiferro- magnet TbInO 3, Nat. Phys. 15, 262 (2019)

2019
[20]

Somesh, S

K. Somesh, S. S. Islam, S. Mohanty, G. Simutis, Z. Guguchia, C. Wang, J. Sichelschmidt, M. Baenitz, and R. Nath, Absence of magnetic order and emergence of unconventional ﬂuctuations in the Jeﬀ = 1 2 triangular-lattice antiferromagnet YbBO 3, Phys. Rev. B 107, 064421 (2023)

2023
[21]

Mohanty, S

S. Mohanty, S. Guchhait, S. S. Islam, S. P. Patra, M. P. Saravanan, J. A. Krieger, T. J. Hicken, H. Luetkens, D. T. Adroja, G. J. Nilsen, M. D. Le, and R. Nath, Crystal electric ﬁeld excitations and spin dynamics in the spin-orbit coupled distorted honeycomb magnet BiErGeO5, P...

2026
[22]

B. Gao, T. Chen, D. W. Tam, C.-L. Huang, K. Sas- mal, D. T. Adroja, F. Ye, H. Cao, G. Sala, M. B. Stone, C. Baines, J. A. T. Verezhak, H. Hu, J.-H. Chung, X. Xu, S.-W. Cheong, M. Nallaiyan, S. Spagna, M. B. Maple, A. H. Nevidomskyy, E. Morosan, G. Chen, and P. Dai, Experimenta...

2019
[23]

Kermarrec, J

E. Kermarrec, J. Gaudet, K. Fritsch, R. Khasanov, Z. Guguchia, C. Ritter, K. A. Ross, H. A. Dabkowska, and B. D. Gaulin, Ground state selection under pres- sure in the quantum pyrochlore magnet Yb 2Ti2O7, Nat. Commun. 8, 14810 (2017)

2017
[24]

A. M. Hallas, J. Gaudet, and B. D. Gaulin, Experimental Insights into Ground- State Selection of Quantum XY Pyrochlores, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 9, 105 (2018)

2018
[25]

J. S. Gardner, M. J. P. Gingras, and J. E. Greedan, Mag- netic pyrochlore oxides, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 53 (2010)

2010
[26]

O. A. Petrenko, C. Ritter, M. Yethiraj, and D. McK Paul, Investigation of the Low-Temperature Spin-Liquid Behavior of the Frustrated Magnet Gadolin- ium Gallium Garnet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4570 (1998)

1998
[27]

J. A. M. Paddison, H. Jacobsen, O. A. Petrenko, M. T. Fern´ andez-D ´ ıaz, P. P. Deen, and A. L. Goodwin, Hidden order in spin-liquid Gd 3Ga5O12, Science 350, 179 (2015)

2015
[28]

Raymond, E

S. Raymond, E. Lhotel, E. Riordan, E. Ressouche, K. Beauvois, C. Marin, and M. E. Zhitomirsky, Un- common Magnetic Ordering in the Quantum Magnet Yb3Ga5O12, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 236701 (2024)

2024
[29]

Y. F. Xin, A. Rutherford, N. Li, M. L. Feng, Y. J. Liu, Z. Y. Zhao, Y. Y. Wang, H. Liang, Y. Zhou, Q. J. Li, M. Y. Xu, W. Xie, E. S. Choi, X. Zhao, J. Ma, H. D. Zhou, and X. F. Sun, Thermodynamics and heat trans- port of a Yb 3Sc2Ga3O12 single crystal: A quantum spin liquid ca...

2026
[30]

Y. Cai, M. N. Wilson, J. Beare, C. Lygouras, G. Thomas, D. R. Yahne, K. Ross, K. M. Taddei, G. Sala, H. A. Dabkowska, A. A. Aczel, and G. M. Luke, Crystal ﬁelds and magnetic structure of the Ising antiferromagnet Er3Ga5O12, Phys. Rev. B 100, 184415 (2019)

2019
[31]

Petit, F

S. Petit, F. Damay, Q. Berrod, and J. M. Zanotti, Spin and lattice dynamics in the two-singlet system Tb3Ga5O12, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013030 (2021)

2021
[32]

T. Arh, B. Sana, M. Pregelj, P. Khuntia, Z. Jagliˇ ci´ c, M. D. Le, P. K. Biswas, P. Manuel, L. Mangin-Thro, A. Ozarowski, and A. Zorko, The Ising triangular-lattice antiferromagnet neodymium heptatantalate as a quan- tum spin liquid candidate, Nat. Mater. 21, 416 (2022)

2022
[33]

J. Xu, V. K. Anand, A. K. Bera, M. Frontzek, D. L. Abernathy, N. Casati, K. Siemensmeyer, and B. Lake, Magnetic structure and crystal-ﬁeld states of the pyrochlore antiferromagnet Nd 2Zr2O7, Phys. Rev. B 92, 224430 (2015)

2015
[34]

N. Zhao, H. Ge, L. Zhou, Z. M. Song, J. Yang, T. T. Li, L. Wang, Y. Fu, Y. F. Zhang, J. B. Xu, S. M. Wang, J. W. Mei, X. Tong, L. S. Wu, and J. M. Sheng, Anti- ferromagnetism and Ising ground states in the rare-earth garnet Nd 3Ga5O12, Phys. Rev. B 105, 014441 (2022)

2022
[35]

Y. Cao, H. Bu, T. Shiroka, H. C. Walker, Z. Fu, Z. Tian, J. Zhao, and H. Guo, Magnetic ground state and persistent spin ﬂuctuations in the triangular-lattice antiferromagnet NdZnAl 11O19, Phys. Rev. B 112, 144409 (2025)

2025
[36]

A. Liu, F. Song, Y. Cao, H. Ge, H. Bu, J. Zhou, Y. Qin, Q. Zeng, J. Li, L. Ling, W. Tong, J. Sheng, M. Yang, L. Wu, H. Guo, and Z. Tian, Dis- tinct magnetic ground states in Shastry-Sutherland lattice materials: Pr 2Be2GeO7 versus Nd 2Be2GeO7, Phys. Rev. B 109, 184413 (2024)

2024
[37]

E. J. Cussen and T. W. Yip, A neutron diﬀraction study of the d0 and d10 lithium garnets Li 3Nd3W2O12 and Li5La3Sb2O12, J. Solid State Chem. 180, 1832 (2007)

2007
[38]

Rodr ´ ıguez-Carvajal, Recent advances in magnetic structure determination by neutron powder diﬀraction, Physica B: Condensed Matter 192, 55 (1993)

J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Carvajal, Recent advances in magnetic structure determination by neutron powder diﬀraction, Physica B: Condensed Matter 192, 55 (1993)

1993
[39]

M. Le, T. Guidi, R. Bewley, J. Stewart, E. Schoon- eveld, D. Raspino, D. Pooley, J. Boxall, K. Gas- coyne, N. Rhodes, S. Moorby, D. Templeman, L. Aﬀord, S. Waller, D. Zacek, and R. Shaw, Upgrade of the mari spectrometer at isis, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Resea...
[40]

Arnold, J

O. Arnold, J. Bilheux, J. Borreguero, A. Buts, S. Camp- bell, L. Chapon, M. Doucet, N. Draper, R. Ferraz Leal, M. Gigg, V. Lynch, A. Markvardsen, D. Mikkel- son, R. Mikkelson, R. Miller, K. Palmen, P. Parker, G. Passos, T. Perring, P. Peterson, S. Ren, M. Reuter, A. Savici, J....

2014
[41]

Guchhait, R

S. Guchhait, R. Kolay, A. Magar, and R. Nath, Mag- netic and crystal electric ﬁeld studies of the Yb 3+-based triangular lattice antiferromagnets NaSrYb(BO 3)2 and K3YbSi2O7, Phys. Rev. B 111, 214437 (2025)

2025
[42]

S. J. Sebastian, R. Kolay, A. B, Q.-P. Ding, Y. Fu- rukawa, and R. Nath, Spin ﬂuctuations, absence of mag- netic order, and crystal electric ﬁeld studies in the Yb 3+- based triangular lattice antiferromagnet Rb 3Yb(VO4)2, Phys. Rev. B 112, 104428 (2025)

2025
[43]

Kolay, A

R. Kolay, A. Magar, A. A. Tsirlin, and R. Nath, Cluster-glass behavior and large magnetocaloric eﬀect in the frustrated hyperkagome ferromagnet Li 2MgMn3O8, Phys. Rev. B 111, 104403 (2025)

2025
[44]

Mugiraneza and A

S. Mugiraneza and A. M. Hallas, Tutorial: a beginner’s guide to interpreting magnetic susceptibility data with the Curie-Weiss law, Commun. Phys. 5, 95 (2022)

2022
[45]

S. J. Sebastian, S. Mohanty, A. Nath, M. P. Sara- vanan, S. Mandal, A. A. Tsirlin, and R. Nath, Disordered ground state in a spin-orbit coupled pseudospin- 1 2 cobalt- based metal-organic framework magnet with orthogonal spin dimers, Phys. Rev. Mater. 8, 034403 (2024)

2024
[46]

Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2004)

C. Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2004)

2004
[47]

Mohanty, S

S. Mohanty, S. S. Islam, N. Winterhalter-Stocker, A. Jesche, G. Simutis, C. Wang, Z. Guguchia, J. Sichelschmidt, M. Baenitz, A. A. Tsirlin, P. Gegen- wart, and R. Nath, Disordered ground state in the spin- orbit coupled Jeﬀ = 1 2 distorted honeycomb magnet BiYbGeO5, Phys. Rev....

2023
[48]

Ahmed, A

N. Ahmed, A. A. Tsirlin, and R. Nath, Multiple mag- netic transitions in the spin- 1 2 chain antiferromagnet SrCuTe2O6, Phys. Rev. B 91, 214413 (2015)

2015
[49]

R. Nath, A. A. Tsirlin, H. Rosner, and C. Geibel, Mag- netic properties of BaCdVO(PO 4)2: A strongly frus- trated spin- 1 2 square lattice close to the quantum critical regime, Phys. Rev. B 78, 064422 (2008)

2008
[50]

https://doi.org/10.5286/ISIS.E.RB2610598-1

doi
[51]

Boothroyd, Principles of Neutron Scattering from Condensed Matter (OUP Oxford, 2020)

A. Boothroyd, Principles of Neutron Scattering from Condensed Matter (OUP Oxford, 2020)

2020
[52]

K. W. H. Stevens, Matrix Elements and Operator Equiv- alents Connected with the Magnetic Properties of Rare Earth Ions, Proc. Phys. Soc. Section A 65, 209 (1952)

1952
[53]

Hutchings, Point-Charge Calculations of Energy Levels of Magnetic Solid State Physics, Vol

M. Hutchings, Point-Charge Calculations of Energy Levels of Magnetic Solid State Physics, Vol. 16 (Academic Press, 1964) p. 227

1964
[54]

D. J. Newman and B. Ng, Crystal Field Handbook (Cam- bridge University Press, 2000)

2000
[55]

A. S. Kutuzov and A. M. Skvortsova, Crystal elec- tric ﬁeld parameters for Yb 3+ ion in YbRh 2Si2, J. Phys.: Confer. Ser. 324, 012039 (2011)

2011
[56]

Xiang, C

J. Xiang, C. Su, N. Xi, Z. Fu, Z. Chen, H. Jin, Z. Chen, Z.-J. Mo, Y. Qi, J. Shen, L. Zhang, W. Jin, W. Li, P. Sun, and G. Su, Dipolar Spin Liquid Ending with Quantum Critical Point in a Gd-based Triangular Mag- net, arXiv:2301.03571

arXiv
[57]

S. Guo, A. Ghasemi, C. L. Broholm, and R. J. Cava, Magnetism on ideal triangular lattices in NaBaYb(BO3)2, Phys. Rev. Mater. 3, 094404 (2019)

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Savary and L

L. Savary and L. Balents, Quantum spin liquids: a re- view, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 016502 (2016)

2016

[2] [2]

S. T. Bramwell and M. J. P. Gingras, Spin Ice State in Frustrated Magnetic Pyrochlore Materials, Science 294, 1495 (2001)

work page 2001

[3] [3]

O. A. Starykh, Unusual ordered phases of highly frustrated magnets: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, 052502 (2015)

2015

[4] [4]

J. G. Rau and M. J. Gingras, Frus- trated Quantum Rare-Earth Pyrochlores, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 10, 357 (2019)

work page 2019

[5] [5]

J. N. Graham, N. Qureshi, C. Ritter, P. Manuel, A. R. Wildes, and L. Clark, Experimental Ev- idence for the Spiral Spin Liquid in LiYbO 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 166703 (2023)

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Here, Ck,± mJ are the weighted coeﬃcients that quantify the contribution of each ( |J = 9/2,m J⟩) basis state to the corresponding eigenfunction

The eigen functions associated with the Kramers doublets can be expressed as linear superpositions of the basis states, |ψk, ±⟩ = ∑ mJ =9/2 mJ =−9/2Ck,± mJ |J = 9/2,m J⟩. Here, Ck,± mJ are the weighted coeﬃcients that quantify the contribution of each ( |J = 9/2,m J⟩) basis state to the corresponding eigenfunction. The complete set of CEF energy eigen- va...

work page 1920

[7] [7]

M. M. Bordelon, E. Kenney, C. Liu, T. Hogan, L. Posthuma, M. Kavand, Y. Lyu, M. Sherwin, N. P. Butch, C. Brown, M. J. Graf, L. Balents, and S. D. Wilson, Field-tunable quantum disordered ground state in the triangular-lattice antiferromagnet NaYbO 2, Nat. Phys. 15, 1058 (2019)

2019

[8] [8]

Y. Li, D. Adroja, R. I. Bewley, D. Voneshen, A. A. Tsir- lin, P. Gegenwart, and Q. Zhang, Crystalline Electric- Field Randomness in the Triangular Lattice Spin-Liquid YbMgGaO4, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 107202 (2017)

work page 2017