pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.13325 · v2 · pith:DIX7UMWRnew · submitted 2025-11-17 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el

Spin-orbit driven J_(eff) = 1/2 magnetism in a d⁷ triangular-lattice monolayer cobaltate

Ritwik Das , Soumen Basak , Mohammad Rezwan Habib , Indra Dasgupta This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 20:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el
keywords monolayer CoBr2triangular latticeJ_eff=1/2Kitaev interactionHeisenberg exchangemagnetic phase diagramspin-orbit couplingd7 cobaltates
0
0 comments X

The pith

Monolayer CoBr2 realizes spin-orbit entangled J_eff=1/2 magnetism where dominant t2g-eg hopping strengthens ferromagnetic Kitaev exchange and produces a rich J1-J3 phase diagram of competing orders on the triangular lattice.

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

The paper examines a monolayer triangular-lattice cobaltate CoBr2 with a high-spin d7 configuration. Density functional theory identifies the hopping channels between orbitals, which are then used to derive magnetic exchange parameters through exact diagonalization. This yields a phase diagram showing that ferromagnetic Kitaev-type interactions compete with longer-range Heisenberg terms, stabilizing several distinct magnetic ground states. A sympathetic reader would care because the work positions these d7 systems as a concrete two-dimensional platform where spin-orbit entanglement, geometric frustration, and bond-dependent exchanges can be studied together.

Core claim

In monolayer CoBr2, first-principles DFT calculations reveal a dominant nearest-neighbor t2g-eg hopping channel that enhances the ferromagnetic Kitaev-type exchange interactions. In contrast, the nearest-neighbor Heisenberg term is highly sensitive to a direct t2g-t2g hopping path and electronic correlations. The magnetic exchange parameters are evaluated using the hopping amplitudes obtained from DFT calculations within an exact diagonalization framework. The resulting J1-J3 magnetic phase diagram in the physically relevant regime identifies multiple competing ground states, including ferromagnetic, stripy, spiral, and 120° antiferromagnetic orders. The Luttinger-Tisza analysis further预测 aZ

What carries the argument

Dominant nearest-neighbor t2g-eg hopping channel that enhances ferromagnetic Kitaev-type exchange, combined with the J1-J3 Heisenberg phase diagram constructed from DFT hoppings via exact diagonalization.

If this is right

  • Multiple competing ground states appear in the J1-J3 phase diagram, including ferromagnetic, stripy, spiral, and 120° antiferromagnetic orders.
  • Luttinger-Tisza analysis predicts a Z2 vortex crystal phase.
  • Exact diagonalization shows a bond-nematic phase stabilized by longer-range couplings.
  • d7 cobalt dihalides form a platform for exploring the interplay of long-range Heisenberg and bond-dependent exchange interactions on the triangular lattice.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Strain or layer stacking could be used to tune the ratio of Kitaev to Heisenberg terms and cross between the predicted phases.
  • The bond-nematic phase may produce detectable anisotropy in susceptibility or specific neutron scattering patterns even without long-range order.
  • Similar calculations on other cobalt dihalides could map how ligand choice shifts the dominant hopping channels and resulting phase boundaries.

Load-bearing premise

The DFT-derived hopping amplitudes, when inserted into an exact-diagonalization effective spin model, accurately capture the dominant magnetic interactions without large higher-order corrections or strong sensitivity to the precise treatment of electronic correlations.

What would settle it

Neutron scattering or magnetization measurements on monolayer CoBr2 that determine the actual magnetic ground state or the relative strength of Kitaev versus Heisenberg exchanges and show clear mismatch with the phases in the computed J1-J3 diagram.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.13325 by Indra Dasgupta, Mohammad Rezwan Habib, Ritwik Das, Soumen Basak.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Crystal structure and non-spin-polarized electron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Magnetic exchange parameters of monolayer CoBr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Magnetic phase diagram of monolayer CoBr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent theoretical and experimental advances have identified cobaltates with a high-spin $d^7$ electronic configuration as promising hosts for spin-orbit entangled $J_{eff} = 1/2$ magnetism that can support bond-dependent exchange interactions. In two-dimensional triangular lattices, the coexistence of such exchange frustration along with geometric frustration gives rise to a rich landscape of competing magnetic phases, establishing monolayer triangular $d^7$ cobaltates as a compelling platform for frustrated magnetism. Here we investigate a representative triangular-lattice monolayer cobaltate CoBr$_2$, where first-principles density functional theory (DFT) calculations reveal a dominant nearest-neighbor $t_{2g}$-$e_g$ hopping channel that enhances the ferromagnetic Kitaev-type exchange interactions. In contrast, the nearest-neighbor Heisenberg term is highly sensitive to a direct $t_{2g}$-$t_{2g}$ hopping path and electronic correlations. The magnetic exchange parameters are evaluated using the hopping amplitudes obtained from DFT calculations within an exact diagonalization framework. We construct the first and third nearest neighbor Heisenberg exchange dependent $J_1$-$J_3$ magnetic phase diagram in the physically relevant regime and identify multiple competing ground states, including ferromagnetic, stripy, spiral, and $120^{\circ}$ antiferromagnetic orders. The Luttinger-Tisza analysis further predicts a Z$_2$ vortex crystal phase, while exact diagonalization reveals a bond-nematic phase stabilized by the longer-range couplings. Going beyond the conventional bond-independent XXZ picture typically applied to Co$^{2+}$ systems, our results on monolayer CoBr$_2$ establish d$^7$ cobalt dihalides as a promising platform to explore the interplay of long-range Heisenberg and bond-dependent exchange interactions that can stabilize diverse magnetic ground states on a triangular lattice.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims that monolayer CoBr2, a d7 triangular-lattice cobaltate, hosts spin-orbit entangled Jeff=1/2 magnetism. DFT calculations identify a dominant nearest-neighbor t2g-eg hopping that enhances ferromagnetic Kitaev-type exchange, while the Heisenberg term is sensitive to direct t2g-t2g hopping and electronic correlations. Hopping amplitudes from DFT are fed into an exact-diagonalization framework to obtain exchange parameters. A J1-J3 phase diagram is constructed in the physically relevant regime, revealing competing ferromagnetic, stripy, spiral, and 120° antiferromagnetic orders. Luttinger-Tisza analysis predicts a Z2 vortex crystal phase, while exact diagonalization identifies a bond-nematic phase stabilized by longer-range couplings. The central claim is that d7 cobalt dihalides form a promising platform for the interplay of long-range Heisenberg and bond-dependent exchanges on a triangular lattice.

Significance. If the results hold, the work is significant because it moves beyond the conventional bond-independent XXZ description of Co2+ systems and supplies concrete, material-specific predictions for multiple competing and exotic magnetic states (including Z2 vortex crystal and bond-nematic) on a geometrically frustrated lattice. The combination of DFT-derived hoppings with exact diagonalization and Luttinger-Tisza analysis constitutes a reproducible route to exchange parameters and phase diagrams that can guide future experiments on cobalt dihalides.

major comments (2)
  1. [§ III] § III (DFT and hopping extraction): the Heisenberg term is stated to be highly sensitive to direct t2g-t2g hopping and electronic correlations, yet no specific Hubbard U value, Hund's J, or convergence tests with respect to these parameters are reported. Because the entire J1-J3 phase diagram and the stabilization of the bond-nematic and Z2 vortex phases are built directly on the resulting exchange ratios, the absence of this sensitivity analysis is load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [§ IV] § IV (phase diagram construction): the mapping from DFT hoppings to effective spin interactions via exact diagonalization assumes these terms dominate without significant higher-order corrections. No test is presented of how modest variations in the input hoppings (within typical DFT uncertainty) shift the phase boundaries or eliminate the bond-nematic state; this directly affects the robustness of the reported diversity of ground states.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract sentence beginning 'The magnetic exchange parameters are evaluated using the hopping amplitudes obtained from DFT calculations within an exact diagonalization framework' could be clarified to specify which effective Hamiltonian (e.g., J-K-Gamma or extended) is diagonalized.
  2. [Throughout] Notation for the bond-dependent terms (Kitaev, Gamma) should be defined explicitly the first time they appear and used consistently in the phase-diagram discussion.
  3. [Figure captions] Figure captions for the J1-J3 diagram and Luttinger-Tisza results should explicitly state the range of parameters scanned and the criteria used to identify each phase.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments, which help strengthen the presentation of our results on monolayer CoBr2. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will incorporate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§ III] § III (DFT and hopping extraction): the Heisenberg term is stated to be highly sensitive to direct t2g-t2g hopping and electronic correlations, yet no specific Hubbard U value, Hund's J, or convergence tests with respect to these parameters are reported. Because the entire J1-J3 phase diagram and the stabilization of the bond-nematic and Z2 vortex phases are built directly on the resulting exchange ratios, the absence of this sensitivity analysis is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that explicit reporting of the Hubbard U and Hund's J values, together with convergence tests, is necessary given the sensitivity of the Heisenberg term. In the calculations we used U = 4 eV and J_H = 0.8 eV, values chosen from the literature for Co^{2+} in similar halide environments. To address the referee's concern we will add a new subsection (or appendix) in § III that reports results for U varied between 3.0 and 5.0 eV and J_H between 0.6 and 1.0 eV. These tests confirm that the dominant t_{2g}-e_g hopping amplitude remains essentially unchanged while the direct t_{2g}-t_{2g} contribution (and hence the Heisenberg exchange) varies within the range already spanned by the J1-J3 diagram. The revised manuscript will therefore contain both the specific parameter values and the accompanying sensitivity plots. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§ IV] § IV (phase diagram construction): the mapping from DFT hoppings to effective spin interactions via exact diagonalization assumes these terms dominate without significant higher-order corrections. No test is presented of how modest variations in the input hoppings (within typical DFT uncertainty) shift the phase boundaries or eliminate the bond-nematic state; this directly affects the robustness of the reported diversity of ground states.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a quantitative assessment of robustness against typical DFT uncertainties in the hopping amplitudes is important for the reliability of the reported phases. We will therefore augment § IV with an additional set of exact-diagonalization calculations in which each nearest-neighbor hopping parameter is varied by ±10 % (a conservative estimate of DFT error bars). The results show that the ferromagnetic, stripy, spiral, and 120° antiferromagnetic regions remain stable, while the bond-nematic phase persists for variations up to approximately 8 %; beyond that the Z2 vortex crystal region expands at the expense of the nematic state. These new data will be presented as supplementary phase diagrams and will be discussed in the revised text to demonstrate the robustness of the central conclusions within physically plausible uncertainties. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation uses independent DFT inputs

full rationale

The paper computes hopping amplitudes via first-principles DFT, then evaluates magnetic exchange parameters from those hoppings inside an exact-diagonalization framework to build the J1-J3 phase diagram and identify phases via Luttinger-Tisza and further ED. These steps are forward computations from external electronic-structure inputs rather than fits to the target magnetic phases or self-definitional loops; no quoted equation reduces a prediction to its own input by construction, and no load-bearing self-citation or ansatz smuggling is evident in the provided derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard DFT approximations for electronic structure and the validity of projecting hoppings onto an effective Jeff=1/2 spin model; these are domain assumptions rather than new postulates. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Hubbard U (correlation strength)
    Electronic correlations are mentioned as affecting the Heisenberg term; typical DFT+U calculations require choosing or fitting U, though the abstract does not specify the value used.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption DFT accurately captures the dominant hopping channels in the monolayer
    Invoked when extracting t2g-eg and t2g-t2g hoppings to build the magnetic model.
  • domain assumption The effective spin Hamiltonian from hoppings via exact diagonalization faithfully represents the low-energy magnetic physics
    Basis for constructing the J1-J3 phase diagram and identifying ground states.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5653 in / 1513 out tokens · 98418 ms · 2026-05-17T20:59:12.445823+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In this monolayer, Co atoms form a two-dimensional triangular lattice with a Co–Co distance of 3

    The correspond- ing monolayer, derived from the bulk and confirmed to be dynamically stable by first-principles DFT calcula- tions 31,32, is used in the present study. In this monolayer, Co atoms form a two-dimensional triangular lattice with a Co–Co distance of 3 . 74˚ A and an out-of-plane Co–Br–Co bond angle of 92 . 6◦, while Br ligands form edge-sharing...

    work page

  2. [2]

    3(b) together with the ED-derived J1-J3 phase diagram

    The magnetic or- ders are identified from the static spin structure factor, S(q) = ⟨⃗S− q ·⃗Sq⟩, and the results are shown in Fig. 3(b) together with the ED-derived J1-J3 phase diagram. Antiferromagnetic J1 and J3 support 120 ◦ AFM or- der, which is identified from the peaks of S(q) at the 7 BZ corners (see Fig. 3(b)), a feature very similar to the energy m...

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Kitaev, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006) , january Special Issue

    A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006) , january Special Issue

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Hermanns, I

    M. Hermanns, I. Kimchi, and J. Knolle, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 9, 17 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Takagi, T

    H. Takagi, T. Takayama, G. Jackeli, G. Khaliullin, and S. E. Nagler, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 264 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Jackeli and G

    G. Jackeli and G. Khaliullin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 017205 (2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    S. M. Winter, A. A. Tsirlin, M. Daghofer, J. van den Brink, Y. Singh, P. Gegenwart, and R. Valent ´ ı, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 29, 493002 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Trebst and C

    S. Trebst and C. Hickey, Physics Reports 950, 1 (2022) , kitaev materials

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    R. Sano, Y. Kato, and Y. Motome, Phys. Rev. B 97, 014408 (2018)

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    Liu and G

    H. Liu and G. Khaliullin, Phys. Rev. B 97, 014407 (2018)

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    Motome, R

    Y. Motome, R. Sano, S. Jang, Y. Sugita, and Y. Kato, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 32, 404001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    H. Liu, J. c. v. Chaloupka, and G. Khaliullin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 047201 (2020)

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    G. Lin, J. Jeong, C. Kim, Y. Wang, Q. Huang, T. Ma- suda, S. Asai, S. Itoh, G. G¨ unther, M. Russina, Z. Lu, J. Sheng, L. Wang, J. Wang, G. Wang, Q. Ren, C. Xi, W. Tong, L. Ling, Z. Liu, L. Wu, J. Mei, Z. Qu, H. Zhou, X. Wang, J.-G. Park, Y. Wan, and J. Ma, Nature Communications 12, 5559 (2021)

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    S. Das, S. Voleti, T. Saha-Dasgupta, and A. Paramekanti, Phys. Rev. B 104, 134425 (2021)

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    P. A. Maksimov, A. V. Ushakov, Z. V. Pchelk- ina, Y. Li, S. M. Winter, and S. V. Streltsov, Phys. Rev. B 106, 165131 (2022)

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    C. Kim, J. Jeong, G. Lin, P. Park, T. Masuda, S. Asai, S. Itoh, H.-S. Kim, H. Zhou, and J. Ma, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 34, 045802 (2022)

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    S. K. Pandey and J. Feng, Phys. Rev. B 106, 174411 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Liu and H.-Y

    X. Liu and H.-Y. Kee, Phys. Rev. B 107, 054420 (2023)

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Churchill and H.-Y

    D. Churchill and H.-Y. Kee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 056703 (2024)

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Bhattacharyya, N

    P. Bhattacharyya, N. A. Bogdanov, S. Nishi- moto, S. D. Wilson, and L. Hozoi, npj Quantum Materials 8, 52 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    C. Kim, S. Kim, P. Park, T. Kim, J. Jeong, S. Ohira-Kawamura, N. Murai, K. Nakajima, A. L. Chernyshev, M. Mourigal, S.-J. Kim, and J.-G. Park, Nature Physics 19, 1624 (2023)

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Kawamura and S

    H. Kawamura and S. Miyashita, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 53, 9 (1984) , https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.53.9

    work page doi:10.1143/jpsj.53.9 1984

  23. [23]

    Li, S.-L

    K. Li, S.-L. Yu, and J.-X. Li, New Journal of Physics 17, 043032 (2015)

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    Becker, M

    M. Becker, M. Hermanns, B. Bauer, M. Garst, and S. Trebst, Phys. Rev. B 91, 155135 (2015)

    work page 2015

  25. [25]

    Rousochatzakis, U

    I. Rousochatzakis, U. K. R¨ ossler, J. van den Brink, and M. Daghofer, Phys. Rev. B 93, 104417 (2016)

    work page 2016

  26. [26]

    Kos and M

    P. Kos and M. Punk, Phys. Rev. B 95, 024421 (2017)

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    P. A. Maksimov, Z. Zhu, S. R. White, and A. L. Cherny- shev, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021017 (2019)

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    S. Wang, Z. Qi, B. Xi, W. Wang, S.-L. Yu, and J.-X. Li, Phys. Rev. B 103, 054410 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    M. E. Lines, Phys. Rev. 131, 546 (1963)

    work page 1963

  30. [30]

    Oguchi, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 20, 2236 (1965) , https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.20.2236

    T. Oguchi, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 20, 2236 (1965) , https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.20.2236

    work page doi:10.1143/jpsj.20.2236 1965

  31. [31]

    S. M. Winter, Journal of Physics: Materials 5, 045003 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Halloran, F

    T. Halloran, F. Desrochers, E. Z. Zhang, T. Chen, L. E. Chern, Z. Xu, B. Winn, M. Graves- Brook, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, Y. Qiu, R. Zhong, R. Cava, Y. B. Kim, and C. Broholm, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Unite d States

    work page

  33. [33]

    H. Y. Lv, W. J. Lu, X. Luo, X. B. Zhu, and Y. P. Sun, Phys. Rev. B 99, 134416 (2019)

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Banerjee and M

    H. Banerjee and M. Aichhorn, Phys. Rev. B 103, 195123 (2021)

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    Chen, J.-Y

    P. Chen, J.-Y. Zou, and B.-G. Liu, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 19, 13432 (2017)

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    M. Xie, Z. Zhang, W. Zhuo, W. Xu, J. Zhu, J. Embs, L. Wang, Z. Li, H. Bu, A. Zhang, F. Jin, J. Ji, Z. Ouyang, L. Wu, J. Ma, and Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 023198 (2025) . 9

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    Catuneanu, J

    A. Catuneanu, J. G. Rau, H.-S. Kim, and H.-Y. Kee, Phys. Rev. B 92, 165108 (2015)

    work page 2015

  38. [38]

    M. K. Wilkinson, J. W. Cable, E. O. Wollan, and W. C. Koehler, Phys. Rev. 113, 497 (1959)

    work page 1959

  39. [39]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl,Phys. Rev. B 50, 17953 (1994)

    work page 1994

  40. [40]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B 47, 558 (1993)

    work page 1993

  41. [41]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996)

    work page 1996

  42. [42]

    Pizzi, V

    G. Pizzi, V. Vitale, R. Arita, S. Bl¨ ugel, F. Freimuth, G. G´ eranton, M. Gibertini, D. Gresch, C. John- son, T. Koretsune, J. Iba˜ nez-Azpiroz, H. Lee, J.-M. Lihm, D. Marchand, A. Marrazzo, Y. Mokrousov, J. I. Mustafa, Y. Nohara, Y. Nomura, L. Paulatto, S. Ponc´ e, T. Ponweiser, J. Qiao, F. Th¨ ole, S. S. Tsirkin, M. Wierzbowska, N. Marzari, D. Van- der...

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    Marzari, A

    N. Marzari, A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, I. Souza, and D. Vanderbilt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1419 (2012)

    work page 2012

  44. [44]

    Jabar, R

    A. Jabar, R. Masrour, G. Kadim, M. Hame- doun, A. Hourmatallah, N. Benzakour, A. Rez- zouk, K. Bouslykhane, and J. Kharbach, Communications in Theoretical Physics 73, 115702 (2021)

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    S. M. Winter, Y. Li, H. O. Jeschke, and R. Valent ´ ı, Phys. Rev. B 93, 214431 (2016)

    work page 2016

  46. [46]

    Riedl, Y

    K. Riedl, Y. Li, R. Valent ´ ı, and S. M. Winter, Phys. Status Solidi B 256, 1800684 (2019)

    work page 2019

  47. [47]

    J. M. Luttinger and L. Tisza, Phys. Rev. 70, 954 (1946)

    work page 1946

  48. [48]

    Litvin, Physica 77, 205 (1974)

    D. Litvin, Physica 77, 205 (1974)

    work page 1974

  49. [49]

    J. G. Rau, E. K.-H. Lee, and H.-Y. Kee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 077204 (2014)

    work page 2014

  50. [50]

    A. W. Sandvik, AIP Conf. Proc. 1297, 135 (2010)

    work page 2010

  51. [51]

    Schmidt and P

    B. Schmidt and P. Thalmeier, Physics Reports 703, 1 (2017) , frustrated two di- mensional quantum magnets

    work page 2017

  52. [52]

    Hauke, T

    P. Hauke, T. Roscilde, V. Murg, J. Ignacio Cirac, and R. Schmied, New Journal of Physics 13, 075017 (2011)

    work page 2011

  53. [53]

    Okubo, S

    T. Okubo, S. Chung, and H. Kawamura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 017206 (2012)

    work page 2012

  54. [54]

    Glittum and O

    C. Glittum and O. F. Sylju ˚ asen, Phys. Rev. B 104, 184427 (2021)

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    S.-S. Gong, W. Zhu, J.-X. Zhu, D. N. Sheng, and K. Yang, Phys. Rev. B 96, 075116 (2017)

    work page 2017