Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 82 references

Magnon Pairs and Spin-Nematic Correlation in the Spin-Seebeck Effect

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In LiCuVO4, an applied magnetic field suppresses the spin-Seebeck effect despite a linear magnetization, because growing spin-nematic correlation binds single magnons into spin-2 pairs that cannot inject spin into the metal contact.

desk verdict A real effect with a plausible but under-quantified magnon-pair interpretation; referee, but hold the authors to a common-field comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08701 v1 pith:2FADHMLO submitted 2019-08-23 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Daichi Hirobe , Masahiro Sato , Masato Hagihala , Yuki Shiomi , Takatsugu Masuda , Eiji Saitoh This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 75.10.Pq75.40.Gb72.25.Ba85.75.-d
keywords spin-Seebeckeffectspin-nematiccorrelationmagnonpairsLiCuVO4frustratedspin-1/2chainTomonaga-Luttingerliquidspincurrentinjectionquantummagnet
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 reports that the spin-Seebeck voltage in a Pt/LiCuVO4 junction is suppressed by an applied magnetic field above about 2 T, even though the magnetization keeps growing linearly with field. The authors attribute the suppression to a field-induced growth of spin-nematic correlation: single magnons bind into spin-2 magnon pairs, opening an energy gap in the single-magnon spectrum and shutting off the spin-1 exchange that injects spin current into the platinum. A microscopic calculation of the interfacial spin current, in which single magnons carry a gap equal to the magnon-pair binding energy, reproduces the field and temperature dependence of the measured signal. The result matters because it turns the spin-Seebeck effect into a tool for detecting spin-nematic states and for identifying the spin quantum number of low-energy excitations.

What carries the argument

The paper's working engine is the spin-nematic (magnon-pair) correlation of a frustrated spin-$\frac12$ chain: a quadrupolar correlation in which magnons pair up into spin-2 objects, so that single magnons open an energy gap equal to the binding energy $E_{\rm bind}$ while pairs remain gapless. The load-bearing formula is the linear-response expression for the interfacial spin current $\tilde{J}_s$, which weights the single-magnon dynamical susceptibility $\chi^{-+}_{\rm mag}$ by a thermal kernel and shows that a gap $E_{\rm bind}$ suppresses the spin-1 current injected into the metal contact. The calculation sets $E_{\rm bind}$ from the $J_1$-$J_2$ chain with $J_1/J_2=-1$ and $J_2=50$ K, finding $E_{\rm bind}$ to grow linearly with $B$ in the low-field regime, which converts a $B$-linear magnetization into a gapped single-magnon response at the interface.

What would settle it

Measure the low-energy spin excitations of LiCuVO4 by inelastic neutron scattering at $B=9$ T and $T=4$ K: the claim predicts a single-magnon gap of about 3 K, equal to the magnon-pair binding energy, opening above about 2 T. If the spectrum instead shows a gapless continuum of single magnons in the same field and temperature range where the spin-Seebeck signal is suppressed, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In a LiCuVO4/Pt junction, the transverse thermopower S associated with the spin-Seebeck effect initially grows with magnetic field but, above about 2 T, deviates below the $B$-linear trend and even acquires a negative slope beyond about 5 T at $T=4$ K, while the isothermal magnetization remains linear in $B$ over the same range. The paper's claim is that this suppression is a crossover from single-magnon to magnon-pair (spin-nematic) correlation: the field increases the binding energy $E_{\rm bind}$ of spin-2 magnon pairs, opening a gap in the single-magnon spectrum, and because the interfacial exchange with conduction electrons transfers spin-1, the pair-carrying channel cannot inject spin current into the platinum. A calculation of the interfacial spin current from a spin-nematic Tomonaga-Luttinger description, with the single-magnon susceptibility gapped by $E_{\rm bind}$, reproduces both the field dependence of $S$ and the broad peak in its temperature profile that shifts upward with increasing field. The claimed conclusion is that spin-Seebeck measurements probe spin-1 magnetic excitations selectively and can detect spin-nematic order in quantum magnets.

Load-bearing premise

The measured suppression is produced solely by a field-induced energy gap in LiCuVO4's single-spin-flip excitations, equal to the magnon-pair binding energy computed for an isolated one-dimensional $J_1$-$J_2$ chain, with weak interchain coupling, coexisting spiral or spin-density-wave correlations, and any magnon-pair-driven spin current all making negligible contributions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The spin-Seebeck effect can serve as a probe of spin-nematic correlation: a field-induced suppression of the spin-Seebeck signal in a material whose magnetization remains $B$-linear is a sign that single magnons are being bound into spin-2 pairs.
  • The interfacial spin transfer in the spin-Seebeck effect is dominated by spin-1 exchange, so spin-2 magnon pairs do not inject spin current into the metal contact; this makes the effect a selective detector of the spin quantum number of magnetic excitations.
  • The broad peak in the temperature dependence of the spin-Seebeck signal, and its shift to higher temperatures as the field grows, arise from the competition between the magnon-pair gap, which suppresses single magnons at low temperature, and the increasing angular momentum per single magnon, which enhances the signal at higher temperature.
  • Because $E_{\rm bind}$ grows linearly with $B$ in the low-field regime of the spin-nematic Tomonaga-Luttinger description, the field scale for the spin-Seebeck suppression is set by the exchange couplings of the chain, not by the Zeeman energy alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism is correct, the same suppression should show up in other quasi-1D $J_1$-$J_2$ chain compounds, with the onset field scaling with $J_2$; comparing the spin-Seebeck field profiles of such compounds would test the generality of the magnon-pair picture.
  • A direct check would be to measure the field-dependent single-magnon gap spectroscopically (for instance, by inelastic neutron scattering or Raman scattering) and to verify that a gap close to $E_{\rm bind}$ opens above roughly 2 T and tracks the spin-Seebeck suppression.
  • Since the authors ignore the magnon-pair contribution to the injected spin current, a residual, weakly field-dependent spin-Seebeck signal at high fields would bound the importance of higher-order interfacial processes that transfer spin-2.
  • The normalized comparison could be turned into a parameter-free test by extracting $E_{\rm bind}(B)$ directly from the measured suppression and comparing it with the theoretical curve, without fixing $J_1$ and $J_2$ in advance.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports spin-Seebeck effect (SSE) measurements on LiCuVO4/Pt junctions. The authors observe a field-induced suppression of the transverse thermopower at low temperatures even though the magnetization is B-linear, and interpret it as evidence for the growth of spin-nematic (magnon-pair) correlations that bind single magnons into spin-2 pairs, thereby suppressing interfacial spin-1 exchange. They support this interpretation with a theoretical calculation of the injected spin current from a spin-nematic Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid with a B-linear magnon-pair binding energy, and claim good agreement with the B and T dependence of the data.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, the work would establish SSE as a probe of spin-nematic correlations in frustrated quantum magnets, a potentially valuable advance. The experimental data are clean and show a robust, reproducible suppression that is difficult to explain by simple Zeeman physics. The theoretical calculation is based on a transparent formula and shows that a single-magnon gap set by the magnon-pair binding energy can produce a broad peak in the spin current. However, the quantitative comparison in Fig. 3(b) is weakened by the use of different saturation fields for theory and experiment, and the temperature comparison in Fig. 4 is not calibrated against the measured magnetization. These issues are central to the claimed agreement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Comparison between experimental and theoretical results, Fig. 3(b)] The central quantitative comparison is made after normalizing B by different saturation fields: Bs = 93 T for the theory and Bs ≈ 43 T for the experiment. The theoretical spin current peaks near |B| ≈ 9 T (B/Bs ≈ 0.1) while the measured S at T = 4 K turns over near |B| ≈ 4–5 T (also B/Bs ≈ 0.1). The authors argue that the B-linearity of Ebind makes the Bs difference non-essential, but this argument is incomplete: in Eq. (2), the single-magnon spectral weight is also controlled by the magnetization m(B/Bs), and the peak position is set by the competition between the growth of m and the growth of the gap. Since m(B/Bs) changes with Bs at fixed physical B, the peak field can depend on Bs even if Ebind(B) is linear. The manuscript provides no replot on a common physical-field axis, so the claimed quantitative agreement is not established. Please show the calculation for the experimental Bs (or for a range of Bs values) on the same Tesla axis as the data and discuss the resulting peak position.
  2. [Fig. 4 and 'Comparison between experimental and theoretical results'] The temperature comparison in Fig. 4 maps experimental B values to theoretical magnetization m values, but the manuscript does not use the measured M(B) curve from Fig. 2(c) to make this mapping. The theoretical m(B) depends on the same J1/J2 and Bs parameters that are already mismatched between theory and experiment. Without a calibrated mapping, the agreement in peak position and peak shift shown in Fig. 4 is qualitative. The authors should use the measured M(B) curve, or at least explicitly show the B-to-m relation used, to place the theoretical curves at the experimental fields.
  3. [Spin-nematic nature of LiCuVO4 and 'Comparison between experimental and theoretical results'] The theoretical treatment assumes that the spin dynamics of LiCuVO4 in the measured B-T window is described by a purely 1D spin-nematic TLL, ignoring interchain coupling and coexisting spiral/SDW correlations. The authors acknowledge this and argue that integrating the other effects will yield a more quantitative result. However, the central claim of a 'well reproduced' B and T dependence rests on this simplified model, and no estimate is given for how the neglected interchain coupling J' (of order a few K) or the 3D spiral correlations might shift the peak field or suppress the signal. A quantitative error estimate on the predicted Js would help assess whether the agreement is meaningful.
minor comments (3)
  1. [References] Reference [19] is incomplete; it lacks the journal name, volume, and page numbers.
  2. [Introduction and experimental results] The sentence 'spin-Seebeck coefficients exhibit positive sign along with the same B dependences as those of M' should read 'positive sign and the same B dependence as that of M'.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption of Fig. 1(a) would be clearer if it explicitly stated which panel is the purely 1D phase diagram and which is the quasi-1D one; currently this is only discernible from the figure itself.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the magnon-pair binding energy is an externally computed input and the measured SSE data are independent.

full rationale

The paper's interpretive chain is: measured S(B) shows a field-induced suppression while M(B) stays linear; the authors hypothesize that a growing magnon-pair (spin-nematic) correlation opens a single-magnon gap; they import Ebind from the published J1-J2 chain calculation [36] (J1/J2=-1, J2=50 K from literature ranges, not fitted to SSE); they insert this gap into the single-magnon spin-current formula Eq. (2); and they compare the resulting Js(B,T) with the measured S(B,T). Ebind is not determined from the SSE data, so the agreement is a consistency check rather than a fitted-input-called-prediction. The statement 'For simplicity, we assume that the spin dynamics of LiCuVO4 is described by a spin-nematic TLL' is an explicit ansatz, but the paper does not claim to derive the spin-nematic state from the SSE data; it uses the independent spin-nematic physics to interpret an external observation. The different normalizing fields (Bs=93 T for the theory, about 43 T for the experiment) and the neglect of interchain coupling and magnon-pair spin current are quantitative-robustness concerns, not circularity. No equation reduces by construction to its own input, and the self-citations carry independently published results whose assumptions do not include the SSE outcome. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the spin-nematic TLL description of LiCuVO4, the interfacial linear-response formula, and the neglect of magnon-pair and interchain effects. No new particles or entities are introduced. The free parameters (J2, J1/J2, tau_s) are either from literature or not stated, rather than fitted to the SSE data.

free parameters (3)
  • J2 (next-nearest-neighbor exchange) = 50 K
    Set to 50 K in the calculation, within the experimentally estimated range of 40-70 K for LiCuVO4. It affects the saturation field and the slope of Ebind(B).
  • J1/J2 (exchange ratio) = -1
    Assumed O(1) and negative, consistent with experimental estimates for LiCuVO4. It sets the form of the spin-nematic TLL and Ebind(B).
  • tau_s (spin relaxation time in Pt) = not stated in main text
    Appears in Eq. (2) for the spin current; its value is not given in the main text, so the calculation is not fully reproducible from the paper alone.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The spin dynamics of LiCuVO4 is described by a spin-nematic Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid in the relevant B,T range.
    Stated in 'Comparison between experimental and theoretical results': 'we assume that the spin dynamics of LiCuVO4 is described by a spin-nematic TLL, ignoring the weak inter-chain interactions.' This is the central modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption A weak exchange interaction Jsd at the magnet-metal interface and the linear-response formula (2) describe the SSE spin current.
    The paper says 'We also make the conventional assumption that a weak exchange interaction Jsd exists at the interface', and formula (2) is taken from prior SSE linear-response theory [3,16,68].
  • domain assumption The magnon-pair-driven spin current is negligible compared to the single-magnon contribution.
    The paper states 'We have ignored the magnon-pair-driven spin current considering its small magnitude', with a reference to the Supplemental Material. This is an assumption that the spin-2 pairs do not inject current via spin-1 exchange.
  • domain assumption The low-energy form of the single-magnon susceptibility chi_{-+} with an energy gap is determined within a practical approximation.
    The paper says 'its low-energy form at finite temperatures was determined within the framework of practical approximation', without giving the full expression in the main text. This is a key input to Eq. (2).
  • domain assumption The B-linearity of the magnetization implies the absence of a simple single-magnon Zeeman gap and supports a gapless spin-nematic description.
    The authors argue that the smooth B-linear magnetization indicates gapless magnon-pair excitations and rules out a Zeeman-gap interpretation. This is a physical assumption about the interpretation of the susceptibility.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnon Pairs and Spin-Nematic Correlation in the Spin-Seebeck Effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2FADHMLO

@misc{pith2026190808701,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnon Pairs and Spin-Nematic Correlation in the Spin-Seebeck Effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2FADHMLO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08701}
}
abstract

Investigating exotic magnetic materials with spintronic techniques is effective at advancing magnetism as well as spintronics. In this work, we report unusual field-induced suppression of the spin-Seebeck effect (SSE) in a quasi one-dimensional frustrated spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ magnet LiCuVO$_4$, known to exhibit spin-nematic correlation in a wide range of external magnetic field $B$. The suppression takes place above $|B| > 2$ T in spite of the $B$-linear isothermal magnetization curves in the same $B$ range. The result can be attributed to the growth of the spin-nematic correlation while increasing $B$. The correlation stabilizes magnon pairs carrying spin-2, thereby suppressing the interfacial spin injection of SSE by preventing the spin-1 exchange between single magnons and conduction electrons at the interface. This interpretation is supported by integrating thermodynamic measurements and theoretical analysis on the SSE.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08701 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) Theoretical ground-state phase diagrams of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (a), (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Uchida, H

    K. Uchida, H. Adachi, T. Ota, H. Nakayama, S. Maekawa, and E. Saitoh, Observation of longitudinal spin-Seebeck effect in magnetic insulators, Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 172505 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    J. Xiao, G. E. W. Bauer, K. Uchida, E. Saitoh, and S. Maekawa, Theory of magnon-driven spin Seebeck effect, Phys. Rev. B 81, 214418 (2010)

    2010

  3. [3]

    Adachi, J

    H. Adachi, J. Ohe, S. Takahashi, and S. Maekawa, Linear-response theory of spin Seebeck effect in ferro- magnetic insulators, Phys. Rev. B 83, 094410 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    S. S.-L. Zhang and S. Zhang, Spin convertance at mag- netic interfaces, Phys. Rev. B 86, 214424 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Hoffman, K

    S. Hoffman, K. Sato, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Landau- Lifshitz theory of the longitudinal spin Seebeck effect, Phys. Rev. B 88, 064408 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    S. M. Rezende, R. L. Rodriguez-Suarez, R. O. Cunha, A. R. Rodrigues, F. L. A. Machado, G. A. Fonseca Guerra, J. C. Lopez Ortiz, and A. Azevedo, Magnon spin-current theory for the longitudinal spin-Seebeck effect, Phys. Rev. B 89, 014416 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    S. M. Wu, J. E. Pearson, and A. Bhattacharya, Param- agnetic spin Seebeck effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 186602 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Kikkawa, K

    T. Kikkawa, K. Uchida, S. Daimon, Z. Qiu, Y. Shiomi, and E. Saitoh, Critical suppression of spin Seebeck effect by magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. B 92, 054436 (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    H. Jin, S. R. Boona, Z. Yang, R. C. Myers, and J. P. Heremans, Effect of the magnon dispersion on the longi- tudinal spin Seebeck effect in yttrium iron garnets, Phys. Rev. B 92, 054436 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    Kehlberger, U

    A. Kehlberger, U. Ritzmann, D. Hinzke, E.-J. Guo, J. Cramer, G. Jakob, M. C. Onbasli, D. H. Kim, C. A. Ross, M. B. Jungfleisch, B. Hillebrands, U. Nowak, and M. Klaui, Length scale of the spin Seebeck effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 096602 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Aqeel, N

    A. Aqeel, N. Vlietstra, J. A. Heuver, G. E. W. Bauer, B. Noheda, B. J. van Wees, and T. T. M. Palstra, Spin-Hall magnetoresistance and spin Seebeck effect in spin-spiral and paramagnetic phases of multiferroic CoCr 2O4 films, Phys. Rev. B 92, 224410 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    S. Seki, T. Ideue, M Kubota, Y. Kozuka, R. Takagi, M. Nakamura, Y. Kaneko, M. Kawasaki, and Y. Tokura, Thermal generation of spin current in an antiferromag- net, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 266601 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    S. M. Wu, W. Zhang, A. KC, P. Borisov, J. E. Pearson, J. S. Jiang, D. Lederman, A. Hoffmann, and A. Bhat- tacharya, Antiferromagnetic spin Seebeck effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 097204 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Geprags, A

    S. Geprags, A. Kehlberger, F. D. Coletta, Z. Qiu, E.-J. Guo, T. Schulz, C. Mix, S. Meyer, A. Kamra, M. Al- thammer, H. Huebl, G. Jakob, Y. Ohnuma, H. Adachi, J. Barker, S. Maekawa, G. E. W. Bauer, E. Saitoh, R. Gross, S. T. B. Goennenwein, and M. Klaui, Origin of the spin Seeb...

    2016

  7. [15]

    J. Li, Y. Xu, M. Aldosary, C. Tang, Z. Lin, S. Zhang, R. Lake, and J. Shi, Observation of magnon-mediated current drag in Pt/yttrium iron garnet/Pt(Ta) trilayers, Nat. Commun.7, 10858 (2016). 6

    2016

  8. [16]

    Hirobe, M

    D. Hirobe, M. Sato, T. Kawamawa, Y. Shiomi, K. Uchida, R. Iguchi, Y. Koike, S. Maekawa, and E. Saitoh, One-dimensional spinon spin currents, Nat. Phys.13, 30- 34 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Hirobe, T

    D. Hirobe, T. Kawamata, K. Oyanagi, Y. Koike, and E. Saitoh, Generation of spin currents from one-dimensional quantum spin liquid, J. Appl. Phys. 123, 123903 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    C. Liu, S. M. Wu, J. E. Pearson, J. S. Jiang, N. d’Ambrumenil, and A. Bhattacharya, Probing short- range magnetic order in a geometrically frustrated mag- net by means of the spin Seebeck effect, Phys. Rev. B 98, 060415(R) (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Z. Qiu, D. Hou, J. Barker, K. Yamamoto, O. Gomonay, and E. Saitoh, Spin colossal magnetoresistance in an an- tiferromagnetic insulator

  12. [20]

    Azevedo, L

    A. Azevedo, L. H. Vilela-Leao,, R. L. Rodriguez-Suarez, A. B. Oliveira, and S. M. Rezende, dc effect in ferromag- netic resonance: Evidence of the spin-pumping effect?, J. Appl. Phys. 97, 10C715 (2005)

    2005

  13. [21]

    Saitoh, M

    E. Saitoh, M. Ueda, H. Miyajima, and G. Tatara, Con- version of spin current into charge current at room tem- perature: Inverse spin-Hall effect, Appl. Phys. Lett. 88, 182509 (2006)

    2006

  14. [22]

    S. O. Valenzuela and M. Tinkham, Direct electronic mea- surement of the spin Hall effect, Nature 442, 176 (2006)

    2006

  15. [23]

    Sinova, S

    J. Sinova, S. O. Valenzuela, J. Wunderlich, C. H.Back, and T. Jungwirth, Spin Hall effects, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1213 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    X. G. Wen, Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Sys- tems, (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2004)

    2004

  17. [25]

    Sachdev, Quantum magnetism and criticality, Nat

    S. Sachdev, Quantum magnetism and criticality, Nat. Phys. 4, 173-185 (2008)

    2008

  18. [26]

    Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, Nature 464, 199-208 (2010)

    L. Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, Nature 464, 199-208 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    Giamarchi, Quantum Physics in One Dimension, (Ox- ford Univ

    T. Giamarchi, Quantum Physics in One Dimension, (Ox- ford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2003)

    2003

  20. [28]

    Penc and A

    K. Penc and A. M. L¨ auchli, Introduction to Frustrated Magnetism, edited by C. Lacroix, P. Mendels, and F. Mila, p. 331. (Springer, Berlin, 2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    Shannon, T

    N. Shannon, T. Momoi, and P. Sindzingre, Nematic Or- der in Square Lattice Frustrated Ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 027213 (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    A. V. Chubukov, Chiral, nematic, and dimer states in quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. B 44, 4693(R) (1991)

    1991

  23. [31]

    Vekua, A

    T. Vekua, A. Honecker, H.-J. Mikeska, and F. Heidrich- Meisner, Correlation functions and excitation spectrum of the frustrated ferromagnetic spin- 1 2 chain in an exter- nal magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B 76, 174420 (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    Hikihara, L

    T. Hikihara, L. Kecke, T. Momoi, and A. Furusaki, Vec- tor chiral and multipolar orders in the spin- 1 2 frustrated ferromagnetic chain in magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B 78, 144404 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    Sudan, A

    J. Sudan, A. Luscher, and A. M. L¨ auchli, Emergent mul- tipolar spin correlations in a fluctuating spiral: The frus- trated ferromagnetic spin- 1 2 Heisenberg chain in a mag- netic field, Phys. Rev. B 80, 140402(R) (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    M. Sato, T. Momoi, and A. Furusaki, NMR relaxation rate and dynamical structure factors in nematic and mul- tipolar liquids of frustrated spin chains under magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. B 79, 060406(R) (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    M. Sato, T. Hikihara, and T. Momoi, Field and tempera- ture dependence of NMR relaxation rate in the magnetic quadrupolar liquid phase of spin- 1 2 frustrated ferromag- netic chains, Phys. Rev. B 83, 064405 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    M. Sato, T. Hikihara, and T. Momoi, Spin-Nematic and Spin-Density-Wave Orders in Spatially Anisotropic Frus- trated Magnets in a Magnetic Field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 077206 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    A. A. Nersesyan, A. O. Gogolin, and F. H. L. Eßler, Incommensurate Spin Correlations in Spin- 1 2 Frustrated Two-Leg Heisenberg Ladders, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 910 (1998)

    1998

  30. [38]

    Hikihara, M

    T. Hikihara, M. Kaburagi, and H. Kawamura, Ground- state phase diagrams of frustrated spin- S XXZ chains: Chiral ordered phases, Phys. Rev. B 63, 174430 (2001)

    2001

  31. [39]

    Furukawa, M

    S. Furukawa, M. Sato, and S. Onoda, Chiral Order and Electromagnetic Dynamics in One-Dimensional Multifer- roic Cuprates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 257205 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    Furukawa, M

    S. Furukawa, M. Sato, S. Onoda, and A. Furusaki, Ground-state phase diagram of a spin- 1 2 frustrated fer- romagnetic XXZ chain: Haldane dimer phase and gapped/gapless chiral phases, Phys. Rev. B 86, 094417 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    M. Sato, S. Furukawa, S. Onoda, and A. Furusaki, Com- peting phases in spin- 1 2 J1-J2 chain with easy-plane anisotropy, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 25, 901 (2011)

    2011

  34. [42]

    Enderle, C

    M. Enderle, C. Mukherjee, B. F˚ ak, R. K. Kremer, J.-M. Broto, H. Rosner, S.-L. Drechsler, J. Richter, J. Malek, A. Prokofiev, W. Assmus, S. Pujol, J.-L. Raggazzoni, H. Rakoto, M. Rheinst¨ adter, and H. M. Rønnow, Quantum helimagnetism of the frustrated spin- 1 2 chain LiCuVO4,...

    2005

  35. [43]

    Naito, K

    Y. Naito, K. Sato, Y. Yasui, Y. Kobayashi, Y. Kobayashi, and M. Sato, Ferroelectric Transition Induced by the In- commensurate Magnetic Ordering in LiCuVO 4, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 76, 023708 (2007)

    2007

  36. [44]

    L. E. Svistov, T. Fujita, H. Yamaguchi, S. Kimura, K. Omura, A. Prokofiev, A. I. Smirnov, Z. Honda, and M. Hagiwara, New high magnetic field phase of the frus- trated S = 1 2 chain compound LiCuVO 4, JETP Lett. 93, 21 (2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    B¨ uttgen, P

    N. B¨ uttgen, P. Kuhns, A. Prokofiev, A. P. Reyes, and L. E. Svistov, High-field NMR of the quasi-one-dimensional antiferromagnet LiCuVO 4, Phys. Rev. B 85, 214421 (2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    Enderle, B

    M. Enderle, B. F˚ ak, H.-J. Mikeska, R. K. Kremer, A. Prokofiev, and W. Assmus, Two-Spinon and Four-Spinon Continuum in a Frustrated Ferromagnetic Spin-1 2 Chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 237207 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    Two-Spinon and Four- Spinon Continuum in a Frustrated Ferromagnetic Spin-1 2 Chain

    S.-L. Drechsler, S. Nishimoto, R. O. Kuzian, J. M´ alek, W. E. A. Lorenz, J. Richter, J. van den Brink, M. Schmitt, and H. Rosner, Comment on “Two-Spinon and Four- Spinon Continuum in a Frustrated Ferromagnetic Spin-1 2 Chain”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 219701 (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    M. Hase, H. Kuroe, K. Ozawa, O. Suzuki, H. Ki- tazawa, G. Kido, and T. Sekine, Magnetic properties of Rb 2Cu2Mo3O12 including a one-dimensional spin- 1 2 Heisenberg system with ferromagnetic first-nearest- neighbor and antiferromagnetic second-nearest-neighbor exchange interact...

    2004

  41. [49]

    Matsui, A

    K. Matsui, A. Yagi, Y. Hoshino, S. Atarashi, M. Hase, T. Sasaki, and T. Goto, Rb-NMR study of the quasi-one-dimensional competing spin-chain compound Rb2Cu2Mo3O12, Phys. Rev. B 96, 220402(R) (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    A. U. B. Wolter, F. Lipps, M. Sch¨ apers, S.-L. Drechsler, S. Nishimoto, R. Vogel, V. Kataev, B. B¨ uchner, H. Ros- ner, M. Schmitt, M. Uhlarz, Y. Skourski, J. Wosnitza, S. S¨ ullow, and K. C. Rule, Magnetic properties and ex- 7 change integrals of the frustrated chain cuprate...

    2012

  43. [51]

    Sch¨ apers, A

    M. Sch¨ apers, A. U. B. Wolter, S.-L. Drechsler, S. Nishi- moto, K.-H. M¨ uller, M. Abdel-Hafiez, W. Schottenhamel, B. B¨ uchner, J. Richter, B. Ouladdiaf, M. Uhlarz, R. Beyer, Y. Skourski, J. Wosnitza, K. C. Rule, H. Ryll, B. Klemke, K. Kiefer, M. Reehuis, B. Willenberg, and S...

    2013

  44. [52]

    K. Nawa, Y. Okamoto, A. Matsuo, K. Kindo, Y. Kita- hara, S. Yoshida, S. Ikeda, S. Hara, T. Sakurai, S. Okubo, H. Ohta, and Z. Hiroi, NaCuMoO 4(OH) as a Candidate FrustratedJ1-J2 Chain Quantum Magnet, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 83, 103702 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    K. Nawa, M. Yoshida, M. Takigawa, Y. Okamoto, and Z. Hiroi, Collinear Spin-Density-Wave Order and Anisotropic Spin Fluctuations in the Frustrated J1- J2 Chain Magnet NaCuMoO 4(OH), Phys. Rev. B 96, 174433 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    S. E. Dutton, M. Kumar, M. Mourigal, Z. G. Soos, J.- J. Wen, C. L. Broholm, N. H. Andersen, Q. Huang, M. Zbiri, R. Toft-Petersen, and R. J. Cava, Quantum Spin Liquid in Frustrated One-Dimensional LiCuSbO 4, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 187206 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    Grafe, S

    H.-J. Grafe, S. Nishimoto, M. Iakovleva, E. Vavilova, L. Spillecke, A. Alfonsov, M.-I. Sturza, S. Wurmehl, H. No- jiri, H. Rosner, J. Richter, U. K. R¨ oßler, S.-L. Drechsler, V. Kataev, and B. B¨ uchner, Signatures of a magnetic- field-induced unconventional nematic liquid in ...

    2017

  48. [56]

    Pregelj, A

    M. Pregelj, A. Zorko, O. Zaharko, H. Nojiri, H. Berger, L.C. Chapon, and D. Arc˘ on, Spin-stripe phase in a frustrated zigzag spin- 1 2 chain, Nature Comm. 6, 7255 (2015)

    2015

  49. [57]

    M. E. Zhitomirsky and H. Tsunetsugu, Magnon pair- ing in quantum spin nematic, Europhys. Lett. 92, 37001 (2010)

    2010

  50. [58]

    Ueda and K

    H. Ueda and K. Totsuka, Magnon Bose-Einstein conden- sation and various phases of three-dimensional quantum helimagnets under high magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B 80, 014417 (2009)

    2009

  51. [59]

    Orlova, E

    A. Orlova, E. L. Green, J. M. Law, D. I. Gorbunov, G. Chanda, S. Kr¨ amer, M. Horvatic, R. K. Kremer, J. Wos- nitza, and G. L. J. A. Rikken, Nuclear Magnetic Reso- nance Signature of the Spin-Nematic Phase in LiCuVO 4 at High Magnetic Fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 247201 (2017)

    2017

  52. [60]

    K. Nawa, M. Takigawa, M. Yoshida, and K. Yoshimura, Anisotropic Spin Fluctuations in the Quasi One- Dimensional Frustrated Magnet LiCuVO4, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 82, 094709 (2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    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. B 90, 134401 (2014)

    2014

  54. [62]

    Masuda, M

    T. Masuda, M. Hagihara, Y. Kondoh, K. Kaneko, and N. Metoki, Spin Density Wave in Insulating Ferromag- netic Frustrated Chain LiCuVO4, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 80, 113705 (2011)

    2011

  55. [63]

    Mourigal, M

    M. Mourigal, M. Enderle, B. F˚ ak, R. K. Kremer, J. M. Law, A. Schneidewind, A. Hiess, and A. Prokofiev, Evi- dence of a Bond-Nematic Phase in LiCuVO 4, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 027203 (2012)

    2012

  56. [64]

    70–82, for details on experimental methods, additional data, and theoretical calculations

    See Supplemental Material, which includes Refs. 70–82, for details on experimental methods, additional data, and theoretical calculations

  57. [65]

    Haldane Gap

    M. Oshikawa, M. Yamanaka, and I. Affleck, Magnetiza- tion Plateaus in Spin Chains: “Haldane Gap” for Half- Integer Spins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1984 (1997)

    1997

  58. [66]

    Oshikawa, Commensurability, Excitation Gap, and Topology in Quantum Many-Particle Systems on a Peri- odic Lattice, Phys

    M. Oshikawa, Commensurability, Excitation Gap, and Topology in Quantum Many-Particle Systems on a Peri- odic Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1535 (2000)

    2000

  59. [67]

    M. B. Hastings, Lieb-Schultz-Mattis in higher dimen- sions, Phys. Rev. B 69, 104431 (2004)

    2004

  60. [68]

    Jauho, N

    A-P. Jauho, N. S. Wingreen, and Y. Meir, Time- dependent transport in interacting and noninteracting resonant-tunneling systems, Phys. Rev. B 50, 5528 (1994)

    1994

  61. [69]

    In the magnon picture, this enhancement can be regarded as the growth of the angular momentum per single magnon

    In formula (2), the growth of the uniform magnetic moment was represented by the enhancement of the renormalization factor of χ−+ mag (see Supplemental Mate- rial [64]). In the magnon picture, this enhancement can be regarded as the growth of the angular momentum per single magnon

  62. [70]

    S. R. Boona and J. P. Heremans, Magnon thermal mean free path in yttrium iron garnet, Phys. Rev. B90, 064421 (2014)

    2014

  63. [71]

    Onose, Y

    Y. Onose, Y. Shiomi, and Y. Tokura, Lorentz Num- ber Determination of the Dissipationless Nature of the Anomalous Hall Effect in Itinerant Ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 016601 (2008)

    2008

  64. [72]

    Shiomi, Y

    Y. Shiomi, Y. Onose, and Y. Tokura, Extrinsic anoma- lous Hall effect in charge and heat transport in pure iron, Fe 0.997Si0.003, and Fe 0.97Co0.03, Phys. Rev. B 79, 100404(R) (2009)

    2009

  65. [73]

    Shiomi, Y

    Y. Shiomi, Y. Onose, and Y. Tokura, Effect of scattering on intrinsic anomalous Hall effect investigated by Lorenz ratio, Phys. Rev. B 81, 054414 (2010)

    2010

  66. [74]

    Onose, T

    Y. Onose, T. Ideue, H. Katsura, Y. Shiomi, N. Nagaosa, and Y. Tokura, Observation of the Magnon Hall Effect, Science 329, 297 (2010)

    2010

  67. [75]

    Hirobe, M

    D. Hirobe, M. Sato, Y. Shiomi, H. Tanaka, and E. Saitoh, Magnetic thermal conductivity far above the N´ eel tem- perature in the Kitaev-magnet candidateα-RuCl3, Phys. Rev. B 95, 24112(R) (2017)

    2017

  68. [76]

    Shiomi, T

    Y. Shiomi, T. Ohtani, S. Iguchi, T. Sasaki, Z. Qiu, H. Nakayama, K. Uchida, and E. Saitoh, Interface- dependent magnetotransport properties for thin Pt films on ferrimagnetic Y 3Fe5O12, Appl. Phys. Lett. 104, 242406 (2014)

    2014

  69. [77]

    Iguchi, K

    R. Iguchi, K. Uchida, S. Daimon, and E. Saitoh, Con- comitant enhancement of the longitudinal spin Seebeck effect and the thermal conductivity in a Pt/YIG/Pt system at low temperatures, Phys. Rev. B 95, 174401 (2017)

    2017

  70. [78]

    L. S. Parfen’eva, I. A. Smirnov, H. Misiorek, J. Mucha, A. Jezowski, A. V. Prokof’ev, and W. Assmus, Spinon Thermal Conductivity of −(CuO2)− Spin Chains in LiCuVO4, Phys. Solid State 46, 357-363 (2004)

    2004

  71. [79]

    A. M. Zagoskin, Quantum Theory of Many-Body Sys- tems: Techniques and Applications 2nd ed. (Springer, 2014)

    2014

  72. [80]

    Stefanucci, and R

    G. Stefanucci, and R. v. Leeuwen, Nonequilibrium Many- Body Theory of Quantum Systems: A Modern Introduc- tion (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013). 8

    2013

  73. [81]

    Onishi, J

    H. Onishi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 84, 083702 (2015)

    2015

  74. [82]

    A. A. Abrikosov, L. P. Gorkov, and I. E. Dzyaloshinski, Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics , (Dover Publications; Revised version, 1975)

    1975

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.