Elementary magnons and interacting multi-magnon quasiparticles in the effective spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ kagome-staircase magnet Co$_{3}$V$_{2}$O$_{8}$

Fengyi Song; Haoyang Leng; Jiajun Mo; Jianjun Ying; Otkur Omar; Shang Gao; Yanjun Li; Yuan Xiao; Zhenmeng Jiang

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Elementary magnons and interacting multi-magnon quasiparticles in the effective spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ kagome-staircase magnet Co$_{3}$V$_{2}$O$_{8}$

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Sharp terahertz branches in the kagome-staircase magnet Co3V2O8 are interacting multi-magnon quasiparticles, and a strongly anisotropic spin-1/2 model captures the one-magnon spectrum.

desk verdict New THz data and a plausible one-magnon Hamiltonian, but the multi-magnon quasiparticle claim rests on an unverified slope-to-number mapping and needs an interacting calculation. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08587 v1 pith:BF5ERM2O submitted 2026-08-09 cond-mat.str-el

Yuan Xiao , Jiajun Mo , Zhenmeng Jiang , Haoyang Leng , Otkur Omar , Yanjun Li , Fengyi Song , Jianjun Ying

show 1 more author

Shang Gao

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.str-el

keywords terahertzspectroscopymulti-magnonquasiparticlesmagnonboundstateskagomestaircaseCo3V2O8anisotropicexchangespin-1/2modelspindynamics

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

The paper uses polarization-resolved, time-domain terahertz spectroscopy to map the magnetic excitations of Co3V2O8, a three-dimensional magnet whose cobalt ions form kagome-staircase layers. It argues that the low-energy modes are single magnons, elementary spin waves, obeying the magnetic-dipole selection rule, and that combining their field dependence with published neutron-scattering dispersions yields an effective spin-1/2 Hamiltonian with strongly anisotropic exchange that quantitatively reproduces the one-magnon spectrum. The same model, without interactions, predicts only weak broad multi-magnon continua above about 1 THz, but the experiment finds sharp branches whose field slopes are two to four times the one-magnon slopes, together with anticrossings between branches assigned different magnon numbers. The central claim is that these sharp branches are interacting multi-magnon quasiparticles, bound composites of two, three, or four spin flips, stabilized by strong exchange anisotropy rather than being continuum features. If true, Co3V2O8 is a three-dimensional magnet with well-defined composite magnon quasiparticles, a regime mostly seen before in one- and two-dimensional systems.

What carries the argument

The central object is an effective spin-1/2 Hamiltonian for the two inequivalent Co sites (spine and cross-tie) of the kagome-staircase lattice, with anisotropic exchange matrices J1, J3, J4, J6 and an isotropic J12, fitted to both the terahertz field dependence at the zone center and the neutron-scattering dispersions. The fitted model provides the noninteracting benchmark: it fixes the one-magnon spectrum, gives site-dependent g-factors along the ordered a axis ($g_s^x=4.80$, $g_c^x=3.41$), and produces the weak, broad multi-magnon continua in the longitudinal and transverse susceptibilities that the sharp experimental branches depart from. The interaction mechanism invoked for the bound states is the broken-bond attraction: because J3 and J4 are strongly ferromagnetic along the ordered direction, two spin flips on neighboring sites leave their shared bond ferromagnetically aligned, so the exchange cost is lower than for two separated flips. The parity argument is also load-bearing: the anisotropic exchange breaks continuous spin-rotation symmetry while preserving magnon-number parity, so even-magnon and odd-magnon sectors remain distinct, and the observed even-odd anticrossings point to Jxy and Jxz terms that change magnon number by odd integers but do not affect the harmonic one-magnon spectrum.

What would settle it

A beyond-linear-spin-wave calculation of the two- and three-magnon spectral functions using the fitted exchange matrices would settle the claim: if the sharp high-energy branches do not emerge as bound states below the noninteracting continua, or an exact calculation places them inside the continuum, the quasiparticle interpretation fails. A simpler check is to measure the field slopes of the labeled 2m and 3m branches with the field along a direction other than a and verify that the slope ratios track the appropriate site-resolved g-factors rather than simple integer multiples of the one-magnon slope.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claim is that the high-energy terahertz response of Co3V2O8 contains sharp, magnetic-dipole-active branches whose magnetic-field slopes are two, three, and four times those of the elementary one-magnon modes, and that these branches are interacting multi-magnon quasiparticles rather than features of the noninteracting multi-magnon continuum. The support comes from a joint analysis of the zone-center field dependence measured by terahertz spectroscopy and the momentum-resolved one-magnon dispersions measured by inelastic neutron scattering; the resulting anisotropic-exchange spin-1/2 Hamiltonian reproduces the one-magnon spectrum quantitatively, and its linear-spin-wave multi-magnon continua are broad and weak, in contrast to the observed sharp branches. The observed avoided crossing between a two-magnon and a three-magnon branch, and the broadening and spectral-weight transfer at the three-magnon/four-magnon crossing, are read as hybridization among composite magnon states. The paper additionally attributes the interaction to a broken-bond mechanism: a neighboring pair of spin flips sharing a strongly ferromagnetic bond costs less exchange energy than two separated flips, so strong exchange anisotropy stabilizes bound composite magnons in three dimensions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a branch's field slope tells you its magnon number, twice as steep meaning two magnons and three times meaning three, even though the two cobalt sites have different couplings to the field (g=4.80 and g=3.41), so the slope-to-number mapping is not automatically guaranteed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is right, Co3V2O8 becomes a three-dimensional example where strong exchange anisotropy stabilizes well-defined composite magnon quasiparticles, extending the bound-magnon phenomenology beyond one- and two-dimensional settings.
The fitted anisotropic-exchange Hamiltonian, together with its one-magnon benchmark, gives future interaction-aware calculations a quantitative starting point for computing binding energies and spectral weights of the multi-magnon branches.
The parity argument predicts that even-magnon and odd-magnon excitations appear in different terahertz polarizations, so polarization-resolved spectra can be used to sort high-energy branches by magnon-number parity.
The observed even-odd anticrossings imply that Jxy and Jxz exchange components, though invisible in the one-magnon spectrum, are constrained by the multi-magnon hybridization data; including them should reproduce the avoided-crossing gaps.
Sharp multi-magnon branches with slopes two to four times the one-magnon slope provide a spectroscopic fingerprint that can be searched for in other strongly anisotropic three-dimensional magnets.

Reading between the lines

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

The slope-to-magnon-number assignment could be tested by computing the field dependence of two- and three-magnon bound states in the fitted model; if the site-dependent g-factors mix into the bound-state slopes, the integer-multiple labelling in the field-dependence plots may need revision.
The polarization-selective 3m-1 electromagnon suggests that magnetoelectric coupling acts differently on even- and odd-magnon sectors, so measuring its field dependence in both Faraday and Voigt geometries could separate electric- and magnetic-dipole matrix elements.
If strong exchange anisotropy is the stabilizing ingredient, then substituting Ni or Mg on the Co sites, which changes the spin-orbit-entangled crystal field, should systematically tune the binding energies and give a chemical series for testing the mechanism.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This paper delivers a genuinely new experimental dataset and a credible one-magnon Hamiltonian. The TDTS measurements resolve polarization-dependent modes, and the fit combining their field evolution with the prior INS dispersion produces an anisotropic-exchange model that plausibly describes the one-magnon sector. The noninteracting continua from that model are a legitimate, parameter-free benchmark.

The central multi-magnon claim, though, rests on an assumption the authors never justify. They label branches 2m, 3m, 4m from field slopes two to four times those of single magnons. That mapping fails to account for the site-dependent g-factors (4.80 vs 3.41), and an n-magnon continuum edge shifts with the same Zeeman sum. So integer slope ratios alone don't identify bound states. The paper also gives no quantitative comparison between the calculated continua and the measured spectra; 'broad and featureless' is asserted, not shown. The anticrossing in Fig. 6 is a real piece of data, but the explanation requires Jxy and Jxz exchanges that the fit deliberately sets to zero. The authors concede that a quantitative calculation is needed, which is honest, but it's also the missing piece that would make the claim.

If they computed the interacting multi-magnon spectrum of their own fitted model—two-magnon T-matrix or ED on a cluster—and showed branches below the continuum with Zeeman slopes from the fitted g-factors, I'd be convinced. As it stands, the paper is a strong experimental report with an overreaching interpretation. Citation pattern is fine; they engage the relevant CVO and bound-state literature.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. It deserves referee time, and the right referee will ask for that calculation or at least for a slope analysis that uses the actual g-tensors. With that, the paper could be good; without it, the headline claim stays conditional.

Yours, [your name]

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports time-domain terahertz spectroscopy of the kagome-staircase antiferromagnet Co3V2O8. The authors identify low-energy one-magnon modes by their magnetic-dipole selection rules and follow their field and temperature evolution. Combining their TDTS zone-center data with previously published inelastic-neutron-scattering dispersions, they fit an effective spin-1/2 anisotropic-exchange Hamiltonian and show that it reproduces the one-magnon spectrum. Using this model as a noninteracting linear-spin-wave benchmark, they calculate multi-magnon continua. They then interpret sharp high-energy branches, with field slopes reported as two to four times the one-magnon slopes, as interacting two-, three-, and four-magnon quasiparticles, and interpret apparent avoided crossings as hybridization between even- and odd-magnon sectors. The central claim is that strong exchange anisotropy stabilizes multi-magnon quasiparticles in a three-dimensional magnet.

Significance. If established, this result would be significant: it would extend the small family of materials with spectroscopically identified multi-magnon quasiparticles to a three-dimensional anisotropic magnet, and it would demonstrate that TDTS can access these interaction-generated modes. The one-magnon part of the work is a genuine strength: the fitting strategy combines zone-center field dependence with published dispersions, reports parameter uncertainties, uses publicly available codes, and provides a parameter-free noninteracting benchmark once the Hamiltonian is fixed. The multi-magnon interpretation, however, is currently not supported to the same standard. The magnon-number assignments rest on an unproven slope-to-number mapping, the comparison with the calculated continua is qualitative, and there is an internal inconsistency between the stated parity selection rules and the observed polarizations of the labeled branches. For these reasons the central claim requires major additional quantitative work before it can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[Sec. V.A, Fig. 6, Table I] The assignment of the high-field branches as 2m, 3m, and 4m quasiparticles rests entirely on the statement that their field slopes are two to four times the fundamental one-magnon slopes. This slope-to-number mapping is not derived. The fitted model has site-dependent g-factors, g_x^s = 4.80 and g_x^c = 3.41 (Table I), and the one-magnon modes themselves have different slopes (Fig. 2(b)). The Zeeman slope of an n-magnon state is the sum of the g-factors of the flipped sites, so the ratio of a multi-magnon slope to any particular one-magnon slope is not generally equal to n. Moreover, the edge of a noninteracting n-magnon continuum has the same slope property, so an approximately integer slope ratio does not by itself distinguish a bound state from a continuum edge. The labels should be justified by computing the field dependence of candidate n-magnon states in the fitted Hamiltonian, or at least by fitting the observed slopes with the site-dependent g-factors and showing that the inferred magnon numbers are unique.
[Sec. V.A, Figs. 5 and 6] The central distinction between sharp quasiparticle branches and broad noninteracting continua is made by qualitative inspection. The calculated spectra in Fig. 5 are plotted on a logarithmic intensity scale and over a different field axis from the data in Fig. 6, with no overlay, no common frequency cut at fixed field, and no quantitative measure of linewidth or integrated weight. Without a quantitative comparison, the statement that the measured branches 'depart from the calculated multi-magnon continua' is not established. Please provide, for example, cuts of the measured absorption at selected fields with the calculated alpha_yy and alpha_zz superimposed, and specify a quantitative criterion for sharpness relative to the noninteracting continuum.
[Sec. V.A and Sec. V.B, Fig. 6] There is an internal inconsistency in the magnon-number selection rules. The text states that the longitudinal response (h parallel to the ordered moment, along a) couples to even-magnon excitations, whereas transverse responses couple to odd-magnon excitations, and Fig. 5 indeed shows two-magnon continua only in alpha_xx and three-magnon continua in alpha_yy and alpha_zz. However, the experimental branches labeled 2m-1, 2m-2, and 4m-1 in Fig. 6 are measured with h parallel to b, which is a transverse geometry. Under the parity argument given in Sec. V.A, these even-magnon branches should be absent from h||b data. The later introduction of Jxy and Jxz terms to explain even-odd hybridization (Sec. V.B) contradicts the parity-conserving model used for the noninteracting benchmark. The authors must show, within one consistent Hamiltonian, how even-magnon spectral weight appears in the h||b response, and how the benchmark selection rules are modified.
[Sec. V.A and Sec. V.B] The conclusion that the sharp high-energy branches are interaction-stabilized multi-magnon quasiparticles is not supported by any calculation of the interacting multi-magnon spectrum of the fitted Hamiltonian. The manuscript acknowledges that 'a quantitative determination of their binding energies and spectral weights requires calculations beyond the LSWT scheme.' Since the paper's central claim is precisely that these modes are interacting quasiparticles, a calculation demonstrating that the fitted anisotropic exchange produces bound states at the observed energies and field slopes is needed. In the absence of such a calculation, the abstract and conclusion should be tempered, and the branches should be described as candidate multi-magnon excitations rather than established interacting quasiparticles.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. V.A, citation [8]] The statement that the sharp high-energy excitations are 'particularly pronounced in the h||b polarization configurations' cites Ref. [8] (Sala et al., Nat. Commun. 2021, on a honeycomb-lattice Van Hove singularity); this reference does not appear to support the claim. Please check and correct the citation.
[Fig. 4] The caption says the calculated INS spectra 'can be directly compared to the experimental report in Ref. [32]', but no side-by-side comparison or residual plot is shown. Displaying the experimental data alongside the calculated spectra would substantially strengthen the one-magnon validation.
[Eq. (2) and Sec. V.B] The Jxy and Jxz exchange terms are said to be 'set to zero' in the fits, but are later invoked as the mechanism for even-odd hybridization. Please clarify whether these terms are zero for symmetry reasons or merely unconstrained by the one-magnon data, and distinguish these two cases explicitly in the text.
[Sec. VI and Abstract] The abstract and conclusion state that multi-magnon quasiparticles 'can be stabilized' and are 'identified' in CVO, while Sec. V.A notes that binding energies and spectral weights have not been calculated. The wording should be reconciled with the evidence presented in the paper.
[Various] There are several typographical errors: 'transition form the ferromagnetic phase' should be 'from'; 'the spectra weight exhibits' should be 'spectral weight'; 'Figures 5 present' should be 'Figure 5 presents'; and 'the high energy multi-magnon response' appears in Fig. 1(e) caption as an unspaced phrase.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the one-magnon-fitted Hamiltonian is used as a parameter-free benchmark for the high-energy response, and the multi-magnon claim, though under-supported, is not equivalent to its inputs.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. The effective spin-1/2 Hamiltonian in Eq. (2) is constrained exclusively by two one-magnon data sets: the TDTS field dependence of zone-center magnons (Sec. IV.B) and previously reported INS dispersions (Ref. [32]), via the MOMPA fits described in Sec. II and Table I. The multi-magnon continua in Fig. 5 are then computed from this already-fixed Hamiltonian using spintoolkit as a parameter-free linear-spin-wave benchmark, and the sharp high-energy branches in Fig. 6 are experimental observations, not outputs of the fit. The paper does not fit any parameter to the high-energy spectra: the effective g-factors g_s^x = 4.80 and g_c^x = 3.41 are determined from one-magnon slopes, and the exchange matrices are determined from one-magnon dispersion data. The claim that the sharp branches are interacting multi-magnon quasiparticles is therefore not equivalent to any fitted input by construction. The integer magnon-number labels (2m, 3m, 4m) rest on an unverified assumption that field-slope ratios equal magnon numbers, and the site-dependent g-factors mean this mapping is not automatic; however, this is a support gap or correctness risk, not a circular reduction. The paper explicitly concedes that a quantitative determination of binding energies and spectral weights requires calculations beyond LSWT (Sec. V.A), further showing that the identification is incomplete rather than tautological. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is present, and the noninteracting continuum benchmark is an honest parameter-free prediction relative to the high-energy data.

Assumptions & free parameters 16 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new fundamental entities are introduced; multi-magnon quasiparticles are composite excitations of the existing magnon degrees of freedom. The central claim rests on a fitted anisotropic-exchange Hamiltonian and several implicit assumptions about the validity of the noninteracting benchmark and the slope-to-magnon-number mapping.

free parameters (16)

J1_xx = 0.56(4) meV
Fitted jointly to TDTS one-magnon field evolution and published INS dispersion via MOMPA; enters Hamiltonian Eq. (2).
J1_zz = -1.57(1) meV
Fitted jointly to TDTS one-magnon field evolution and published INS dispersion via MOMPA; enters Hamiltonian Eq. (2).
J1_yz+DM (matrix 2,3) = -0.39(3) meV
Matrix element of J1 in Table I; combines symmetric anisotropic exchange and Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya contribution.
J1_zy+DM (matrix 3,2) = -0.24(1) meV
Matrix element of J1 in Table I; combines symmetric anisotropic exchange and Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya contribution.
J3_xx = -2.02(4) meV
Fitted jointly to TDTS one-magnon field evolution and published INS dispersion via MOMPA; enters Hamiltonian Eq. (2).
J3_yz+DM (matrix 2,3) = 0.19(1) meV
Matrix element of J3 in Table I; combines symmetric anisotropic exchange and Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya contribution.
J3_zy+DM (matrix 3,2) = 0.24(1) meV
Matrix element of J3 in Table I; combines symmetric anisotropic exchange and Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya contribution.
J3_zz = -0.60(1) meV
Fitted jointly to TDTS one-magnon field evolution and published INS dispersion via MOMPA; enters Hamiltonian Eq. (2).
J4_xx = -3.00(1) meV
Fitted jointly to TDTS one-magnon field evolution and published INS dispersion via MOMPA; enters Hamiltonian Eq. (2).
J4_yy = 0.71(1) meV
Fitted jointly to TDTS one-magnon field evolution and published INS dispersion via MOMPA; enters Hamiltonian Eq. (2).
J4_yz = -1.64(1) meV
Fitted symmetric off-diagonal exchange in J4; enters Hamiltonian Eq. (2).
J6_diag = 0.10(1) meV
Fitted diagonal exchange for J6, assumed equal for xx, yy, zz; enters Hamiltonian Eq. (2).
J6_DM = 0.08(1) meV
Fitted antisymmetric off-diagonal exchange for J6; enters Hamiltonian Eq. (2).
J12 = 0.09(1) meV
Fitted isotropic twelfth-neighbor exchange; enters Hamiltonian Eq. (2).
g_x_s = 4.80(7)
Fitted effective g-factor for spine sites along the a axis; enters the Zeeman term in the spin model.
g_x_c = 3.41(1)
Fitted effective g-factor for cross-tie sites along the a axis; enters the Zeeman term in the spin model.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Linear spin-wave theory and the noninteracting multi-magnon cross sections computed with spintoolkit provide a valid benchmark for the measured THz response.
Section IV.C and Section V.A; the model's failure to reproduce the sharp high-energy branches is the central evidence for interaction effects, so the benchmark itself must be trustworthy.
domain assumption The Co2+ ground state is an isolated Kramers doublet separated by ~30 meV, justifying the effective spin-1/2 description.
Section IV.C; based on PyCrystalField point-charge calculations with lambda=-18.7 meV, not directly verified by spectroscopy.
ad hoc to paper Jxy and Jxz exchange components are negligible for one-magnon excitations and may be set to zero, yet they are later invoked to explain even-odd magnon-number hybridization.
Section IV.C omits them from Eq. (2); Section V.B argues they couple even- and odd-magnon states. Their dual role is not quantitatively reconciled.
ad hoc to paper The ratio of field slopes of a multi-magnon branch to a one-magnon branch equals the magnon number of the branch.
Section V.A uses slopes 'two to four times' the one-magnon slopes to label 2m, 3m, and 4m branches; this mapping is not derived and ignores site-dependent g-factors.
domain assumption The 15 K paramagnetic transmission spectrum is a valid reference that contains no magnetic signal, and demagnetization corrections account for sample-geometry effects.
Methods Section II and Fig. 3; normalization and demagnetization directly affect the extracted peak positions and field behavior.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Elementary magnons and interacting multi-magnon quasiparticles in the effective spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ kagome-staircase magnet Co$_{3}$V$_{2}$O$_{8}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BF5ERM2O

@misc{pith2026260808587,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Elementary magnons and interacting multi-magnon quasiparticles in the effective spin-$\frac12$ kagome-staircase magnet Co$_3$V$_2$O$_8$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BF5ERM2O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08587}
}

abstract

The excitation spectrum of an anisotropic magnet provides a direct link between its microscopic Hamiltonian and interaction-driven quasiparticles. Here we use high-resolution time-domain terahertz spectroscopy to map the magnetic excitations of the three-dimensional kagome-staircase compound Co$_{3}$V$_{2}$O$_{8}$ as functions of temperature and magnetic field. At low energies, polarization-resolved spectra identify magnetic-dipole-active one-magnon modes and track their evolution across the ferromagnetic and spin-density-wave phases. Combining their field dependence with previously reported inelastic-neutron-scattering dispersions, we determine an effective spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ Hamiltonian with strongly anisotropic exchange that quantitatively reproduces the one-magnon spectrum. This model provides a noninteracting benchmark for the high-energy response, where we observe sharp branches with field slopes that are two to four times those of the one-magnon modes, together with anticrossings between branches of different magnon numbers. Their sharpness, polarization dependence, and departure from the calculated multi-magnon continua identify them as interacting multi-magnon quasiparticles that can be stabilized by strong exchange anisotropy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08587 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) Temperature dependence of the terahertz spectra measured with the polarization configuration of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (a) Time-domain signals for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a-d) Calculated inelastic neutron-scattering spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a-c) Calculated field-dependent magnetic-dipole absorption coefficients (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a,b) Field dependence of the multi-magnon excitations measured in the (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Unpolarized temperature-dependent Raman [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

[1]

Kubo, The Spin-Wave Theory of Antiferromagnetics, Phys

R. Kubo, The Spin-Wave Theory of Antiferromagnetics, Phys. Rev.87, 568 (1952)

work page 1952
[2]

Oguchi, Theory of spin-wave interactions in ferro-and antiferromagnetism, Phys

T. Oguchi, Theory of spin-wave interactions in ferro-and antiferromagnetism, Phys. Rev.117, 117 (1960)

work page 1960
[3]

Bethe, Zur theorie der metalle: I

H. Bethe, Zur theorie der metalle: I. eigenwerte und eigenfunktionen der linearen atomkette, Z. Phys.71, 205 (1931)

work page 1931
[4]

Wortis, Bound States of Two Spin Waves in the Heisenberg Ferromagnet, Phys

M. Wortis, Bound States of Two Spin Waves in the Heisenberg Ferromagnet, Phys. Rev.132, 85 (1963)

work page 1963
[5]

F. J. Dyson, General theory of spin-wave interactions, Phys. Rev.102, 1217 (1956)

1956
[6]

A. T. Boothroyd,Principles of Neutron Scattering from Condensed Matter(Oxford University Press, 2020)

2020
[7]

R. S. Fishman, J. A. Fernandez-Baca, and T. R˜ oom, Spin-Wave Theory and its Applications to Neutron Scat- tering and THz Spectroscopy, Morgan & Claypool Pub- lishers (2018)

work page 2018
[8]

G. Sala, M. B. Stone, B. K. Rai, A. F. May, P. Laurell, V. O. Garlea, N. P. Butch, M. D. Lumsden, G. Ehlers, G. Pokharel, A. Podlesnyak, D. Mandrus, D. S. Parker, S. Okamoto, G. Halasz, and A. D. Christianson, Van Hove singularity in the magnon spectrum of the antifer- romagnetic quantum honeycomb lattice, Nat. Commun. 12, 171 (2021)

work page 2021

Show all 51 references

[9]

Zoghlin, M

E. Zoghlin, M. B. Stone, and S. D. Wilson, Refined spin- wave model and multimagnon bound states in Li 2CuO2, Phys. Rev. B108, 064408 (2023)

2023
[10]

R. L. Dally, A. J. R. Heng, A. Keselman, M. M. Borde- lon, M. B. Stone, L. Balents, and S. D. Wilson, Three- Magnon Bound State in the Quasi-One-Dimensional An- tiferromagnetα-NaMnO 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 197203 (2020)

2020
[11]

M. Koch, D. M. Mittleman, J. Ornik, and E. Castro- Camus, Terahertz time-domain spectroscopy, Nat. Rev. Methods Primers3, 48 (2023)

2023
[12]

Legros, S.-S

A. Legros, S.-S. Zhang, X. Bai, H. Zhang, Z. Dun, W. A. Phelan, C. D. Batista, M. Mourigal, and N. P. Armitage, Observation of 4- and 6-magnon bound states in the spin- anisotropic frustrated antiferromagnet FeI 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 267201 (2021)

2021
[13]

Peedu, V

L. Peedu, V. Kocsis, D. Szaller, B. Forrai, S. Bord´ acs, I. K´ ezsm´ arki, J. Viirok, U. Nagel, B. Bern´ ath, D. L. Kamenskyi, A. Miyata, O. Portugall, Y. Tokunaga, Y. Tokura, Y. Taguchi, and T. R˜ o˜ om, Terahertz spec- troscopy of spin excitations in magnetoelectric LiFePO ...

2022
[14]

Sahasrabudhe, D

A. Sahasrabudhe, D. A. S. Kaib, S. Reschke, R. Ger- man, T. C. Koethe, J. Buhot, D. Kamenskyi, C. Hickey, 10 P. Becker, V. Tsurkan, A. Loidl, S. H. Do, K. Y. Choi, M. Gr¨ uninger, S. M. Winter, Z. Wang, R. Valent ´ ı, and P. H. M. van Loosdrecht, High-field quantum disordered ...

2020
[15]

Woodland, D

L. Woodland, D. Macdougal, I. M. Cabrera, J. D. Thompson, D. Prabhakaran, R. I. Bewley, and R. Coldea, Tuning the confinement potential between spinons in the Ising chain compound CoNb2O6 using longitudinal fields and quantitative determination of the microscopic Hamil- tonian...

2023
[16]

Morris, R

C. Morris, R. Vald´ es Aguilar, A. Ghosh, S. Koohpayeh, J. Krizan, R. Cava, O. Tchernyshyov, T. McQueen, and N. Armitage, Hierarchy of bound states in the one- dimensional ferromagnetic ising chain CoNb 2O6 inves- tigated by high-resolution time-domain terahertz spec- troscopy...

2014
[17]

Z. Wang, J. Wu, W. Yang, A. K. Bera, D. Kamenskyi, A. N. Islam, S. Xu, J. M. Law, B. Lake, C. Wu,et al., Experimental observation of bethe strings, Nature554, 219 (2018)

2018
[18]

Wang, C.-M

Z. Wang, C.-M. Halati, J.-S. Bernier, A. Ponomaryov, D. I. Gorbunov, S. Niesen, O. Breunig, J. M. Klopf, S. Zvyagin, T. Lorenz,et al., Experimental observation of repulsively bound magnons, Nature631, 760 (2024)

2024
[19]

Halati, Z

C.-M. Halati, Z. Wang, T. Lorenz, C. Kollath, and J.-S. Bernier, Repulsively bound magnon excitations of a spin- 1 2 XXZ chain in a staggered transverse field, Phys. Rev. B108, 224429 (2023)

2023
[20]

El Mendili, T

A. El Mendili, T. Ziman, and M. E. Zhitomirsky, Longi- tudinal magnons in large-Seasy-axis magnets, Phys. Rev. B112, 174433 (2025)

2025
[21]

X. Lou, J. Li, and N. Wu, Evolution of two-magnon bound states in a higher-spin ferromagnetic chain with single-ion anisotropy: A complete solution, Phys. Rev. B 110, L100404 (2024)

2024
[22]

Cenker, B

J. Cenker, B. Huang, N. Suri, P. Thijssen, A. Miller, T. Song, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. A. McGuire, D. Xiao, and X. Xu, Direct observation of two- dimensional magnons in atomically thin CrI3, Nat. Phys. 17, 20–25 (2020)

2020
[23]

Wyzula, I

J. Wyzula, I. Mohelsk´ y, D. V´ aclavkov´ a, P. Kapuscinski, M. Veis, C. Faugeras, M. Potemski, M. E. Zhitomirsky, and M. Orlita, High-angular momentum excitations in collinear antiferromagnet FePS 3, Nano Lett.22, 9741 (2022)

2022
[24]

F. Yen, R. Chaudhury, E. Galstyan, B. Lorenz, Y. Wang, Y. Sun, and C. Chu, Magnetic phase diagrams of the kagom´ e staircase compound Co3V2O8, Physica B403, 1487 (2008)

2008
[25]

Chauhan, F

P. Chauhan, F. Mahmood, H. J. Changlani, S. M. Kooh- payeh, and N. P. Armitage, Tunable magnon interactions in a ferromagnetic spin-1 chain, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 037203 (2020)

2020
[26]

Sheng, J.-W

J. Sheng, J.-W. Mei, L. Wang, X. Xu, W. Jiang, L. Xu, H. Ge, N. Zhao, T. Li, A. Candini,et al., Bose–Einstein condensation of a two-magnon bound state in a spin-1 triangular lattice, Nat. Mater.24, 544 (2025)

2025
[27]

Hanus, Bound States in the Heisenberg Ferromagnet, Phys

J. Hanus, Bound States in the Heisenberg Ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett.11, 336 (1963)

1963
[28]

L. Pan, S. K. Kim, A. Ghosh, C. M. Morris, K. A. Ross, E. Kermarrec, B. D. Gaulin, S. Koohpayeh, O. Tch- ernyshyov, and N. Armitage, Low-energy electrodynam- ics of novel spin excitations in the quantum spin ice Yb2Ti2O7, Nat. Commun.5, 1 (2014)

2014
[29]

N. R. Wilson, O. A. Petrenko, and L. C. Chapon, Magnetic phases in the Kagom´ e staircase compound Co3V2O8 studied using powder neutron diffraction, Phys. Rev. B75, 094432 (2007)

2007
[30]

Y. Chen, J. W. Lynn, Q. Huang, F. M. Woodward, T. Yildirim, G. Lawes, A. P. Ramirez, N. Rogado, R. J. Cava, A. Aharony,et al., Complex magnetic order in the kagom´ e staircase compound Co3V2O8, Phys. Rev. B74, 014430 (2006)

2006
[31]

Fritsch, Z

K. Fritsch, Z. Yamani, S. Chang, Y. Qiu, J. R. D. Copley, M. Ramazanoglu, H. A. Dabkowska, and B. D. Gaulin, Magnetic order and fluctuations in the pres- ence of quenched disorder in the kagome staircase system (Co1 –xMgx )3V2O8, Phys. Rev. B86, 174421 (2012)

2012
[32]

J. S. Helton, N. P. Butch, D. M. Pajerowski, S. N. Bar- ilo, and J. W. Lynn, Three-dimensional magnetism and the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction in S= 3/2 kagom´ e staircase Co3V2O8, Sci. Adv.6, eaay9709 (2020)

2020
[33]

Fritsch, G

K. Fritsch, G. Ehlers, K. C. Rule, K. Habicht, M. Ra- mazanoglu, H. A. Dabkowska, and B. D. Gaulin, Quan- tum phase transitions and decoupling of magnetic sublat- tices in the quasi-two-dimensional Ising magnet Co3V2O8 in a transverse magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B92, 180404 (2015)

2015
[34]

Ramazanoglu, C

M. Ramazanoglu, C. P. Adams, J. P. Clancy, A. J. Berlin- sky, Z. Yamani, R. Szymczak, H. Szymczak, J. Fink- Finowicki, and B. D. Gaulin, Spin waves in the ferro- magnetic ground state of the kagome staircase system Co3V2O8, Phys. Rev. B79, 024417 (2009)

2009
[35]

Liu and G

H. Liu and G. Khaliullin, Pseudospin exchange interac- tions ind 7 cobalt compounds: Possible realization of the Kitaev model, Phys. Rev. B97, 014407 (2018)

2018
[36]

S. M. Winter, Magnetic couplings in edge-sharing high- spind 7 compounds, J. Phys. Mater.5, 045003 (2022)

2022
[37]

Balakrishnan, O

G. Balakrishnan, O. A. Petrenko, M. R. Lees, and D. M. Paul, Single crystals of the anisotropic kagom´ e staircase compounds Ni 3V2O8 and Co 3V2O8, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter16, L347 (2004)

2004
[38]

Nagel, R

U. Nagel, R. S. Fishman, T. Katuwal, H. Engelkamp, D. Talbayev, H. T. Yi, S.-W. Cheong, and T. R˜ o om, Ter- ahertz spectroscopy of spin waves in multiferroic BiFeO3 in high magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 257201 (2013)

2013
[39]

Faramarzi, M

A. Faramarzi, M. Heidarinejad, S. Mirjalili, and A. H. Gandomi, Marine Predators Algorithm: A nature- inspired metaheuristic, Expert Syst. Appl.152, 113377 (2020)

2020
[40]

Zhong, G

K. Zhong, G. Zhou, W. Deng, Y. Zhou, and Q. Luo, MOMPA: Multi-objective marine predator algorithm, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.385, 114029 (2021)

2021
[41]

J. Mo, O. Omar, S. Guang, K. Iida, K. Kamazawa, F. Or- landi, W. Yang, X. Ma, X. Zheng, Y. Peng, Y. Xiao, S. Zhang, O. Zaharko, X. Sun, and S. Gao, Emergent vor- tex ordering in a multiflavor pyrochlore-lattice compound GeCo2O4 (2026), arXiv:2605.12042 [cond-mat.str-el]

2026 arXiv
[42]

Dahlbom, H

D. Dahlbom, H. Zhang, C. Miles, S. Quinn, A. Niraula, B. Thipe, M. Wilson, S. Matin, H. Mankad, S. Hahn, D. Pajerowski, S. Johnston, Z. Wang, H. Lane, Y. W. Li, X. Bai, M. Mourigal, C. D. Batista, and K. Bar- ros, Sunny.jl: A Julia Package for Spin Dynamics (2025), arXiv:2501....

2025 arXiv
[43]

SpinToolkit Developers, SpinToolkit,https://github.c om/spintoolkit-dev/SpinToolkit_py(2026). 11

2026
[44]

L. Xu, X. Shi, Y. Jiao, J. Yang, L. Yang, and Z. Wang, In preparation (2026), unpublished work

2026
[45]

H. Y. Ling, Theoretical investigation of transmission through a Faraday-active Fabry–Perot etalon, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A11, 754 (1994)

1994
[46]

K. Sycz, W. Gawlik, and J. Zachorowski, Resonant Fara- day effect in a Fabry–Perot cavity, Opt. Appl.40, 633 (2010)

2010
[47]

R. C. Rai, J. Cao, L. I. Vergara, S. Brown, J. L. Mus- feldt, D. J. Singh, G. Lawes, N. Rogado, R. J. Cava, and X. Wei, High-energy magnetodielectric effect in kagome staircase materials, Phys. Rev. B76, 174414 (2007)

2007
[48]

M. E. Lines, Magnetic properties of CoCl 2 and NiCl 2, Phys. Rev.131, 546 (1963)

1963
[49]

Scheie,PyCrystalField: software for calculation, anal- ysis and fitting of crystal electric field Hamiltonians, J

A. Scheie,PyCrystalField: software for calculation, anal- ysis and fitting of crystal electric field Hamiltonians, J. Appl. Crystallogr.54, 356 (2021)

2021
[50]

C. Kant, T. Rudolf, F. Schrettle, F. Mayr, J. Deisenhofer, P. Lunkenheimer, M. V. Eremin, and A. Loidl, Optical spectroscopy in CoO: Phononic, electric, and magnetic excitation spectrum within the charge-transfer gap, Phys. Rev. B78, 245103 (2008)

2008
[51]

Dong and J.-X

Z.-Y. Dong and J.-X. Li, Two-magnon bound states and their oscillating deconfinement crossover in two and three dimensions, Phys. Rev. B108, 024407 (2023)

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Kubo, The Spin-Wave Theory of Antiferromagnetics, Phys

R. Kubo, The Spin-Wave Theory of Antiferromagnetics, Phys. Rev.87, 568 (1952)

work page 1952

[2] [2]

Oguchi, Theory of spin-wave interactions in ferro-and antiferromagnetism, Phys

T. Oguchi, Theory of spin-wave interactions in ferro-and antiferromagnetism, Phys. Rev.117, 117 (1960)

work page 1960

[3] [3]

Bethe, Zur theorie der metalle: I

H. Bethe, Zur theorie der metalle: I. eigenwerte und eigenfunktionen der linearen atomkette, Z. Phys.71, 205 (1931)

work page 1931

[4] [4]

Wortis, Bound States of Two Spin Waves in the Heisenberg Ferromagnet, Phys

M. Wortis, Bound States of Two Spin Waves in the Heisenberg Ferromagnet, Phys. Rev.132, 85 (1963)

work page 1963

[5] [5]

F. J. Dyson, General theory of spin-wave interactions, Phys. Rev.102, 1217 (1956)

1956

[6] [6]

A. T. Boothroyd,Principles of Neutron Scattering from Condensed Matter(Oxford University Press, 2020)

2020

[7] [7]

R. S. Fishman, J. A. Fernandez-Baca, and T. R˜ oom, Spin-Wave Theory and its Applications to Neutron Scat- tering and THz Spectroscopy, Morgan & Claypool Pub- lishers (2018)

work page 2018

[8] [8]

G. Sala, M. B. Stone, B. K. Rai, A. F. May, P. Laurell, V. O. Garlea, N. P. Butch, M. D. Lumsden, G. Ehlers, G. Pokharel, A. Podlesnyak, D. Mandrus, D. S. Parker, S. Okamoto, G. Halasz, and A. D. Christianson, Van Hove singularity in the magnon spectrum of the antifer- romagnetic quantum honeycomb lattice, Nat. Commun. 12, 171 (2021)

work page 2021