Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 57 references

A case study of bilayered spin-$1/2$ square lattice compound [VO(HCOO)$_2\cdot$(H$_2$O)]

T0 review · 3 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 The paper claims that a bilayered vanadyl formate salt is a quasi-2D spin-1/2 square-lattice antiferromagnet with J1/kB ≈ 11.7 K.

desk verdict First magnetic characterization of a known vanadyl formate; the J1 estimate is solid, but the 'best quasi-2D' claim leans on an unconstrained interlayer sector. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06032 v1 pith:E4EL2XPC submitted 2019-08-16 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-el

S. Guchhait , U. Arjun , P. K. Anjana , M. Sahoo , A. Thirumurugan , A. Madhi , Y. Skourski , B. Koo
show 4 more authors
J. Sichelschmidt B. Schmidt M. Baenitz R. Nath
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el PACS 75.30.Et75.50.Ee75.40.Cx75.50.-y75.10.Jm
keywords spin-1/2squarelatticefrustratedJ1-J2modelmetal-organicantiferromagnetvanadylformatequasi-two-dimensionalmagnetismNéelantiferromagneticorderhigh-fieldmagnetization
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 reports a new member of the spin-1/2 square-lattice family, the metal-organic salt [VO(HCOO)$_2\cdot$(H$_2$O)]. It argues that this compound is a quasi-two-dimensional antiferromagnet whose magnetism is captured by the frustrated square-lattice ($J_1$-$J_2$) Heisenberg model with a dominant nearest-neighbour coupling $J_1/k_{\rm B}\simeq 11.7$ K and an almost vanishing second-neighbour coupling $J_2/k_{\rm B}\simeq 0.02$ K. The evidence comes from magnetic susceptibility, heat capacity, high-field magnetization up to 40 T, and electron spin resonance, all of which are claimed to be consistent with this single spin model. The compound orders antiferromagnetically at $T_{\rm N}\simeq 1.1$ K, and the large ratio $\theta_{\rm CW}/T_{\rm N}\simeq 10.9$ is presented as a mark of excellent two-dimensionality. If correct, this makes the salt the best metal-organic realization of a spin-1/2 square lattice to date, a useful clean platform for testing 2D quantum magnetism.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spin-1/2 frustrated square lattice ($J_1$-$J_2$ model) with Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}=J_1\sum_{\langle ij\rangle}\mathbf{S}_i\cdot\mathbf{S}_j+J_2\sum_{\langle\langle ij\rangle\rangle}\mathbf{S}_i\cdot\mathbf{S}_j$ plus a Zeeman term. The analysis leans on three calculational tools: the high-temperature series expansion (HTSE) of the susceptibility for this model, which yields the coefficients used to extract $J_1$ and $J_2$ from powder data; the saturation-field formula $H_{\rm S}=4J_1k_{\rm B}/(g\mu_{\rm B})$ for the Néel phase, which provides an independent estimate of $J_1$; and quantum Monte Carlo simulations of the uniform square-lattice Heisenberg model with which the measured high-field magnetization is compared. The bilayered crystal structure, with frustrated triangular interlayer couplings, is invoked to explain why the ordering temperature is so low despite the sizeable in-plane coupling.

What would settle it

A neutron scattering experiment on fully deuterated single crystals would settle it: the observation of a $(\pi,\pi)$ ordering wave vector and a spin-wave dispersion consistent with $J_1\simeq 11.7$ K and weak in-plane anisotropy would confirm the square-lattice identification, whereas a different ordering vector or a sizable spin gap would refute the fitted parameters and the claim of unambiguous 2D behavior.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the magnetic properties of [VO(HCOO)$_2\cdot$(H$_2$O)] are quantitatively described by a spin-1/2 Heisenberg model on a quasi-2D square lattice with nearest-neighbour coupling $J_1/k_{\rm B}\simeq 11.7$ K and next-nearest-neighbour coupling $J_2/k_{\rm B}\simeq 0.02$ K. The paper asserts that this description is unambiguous: the high-temperature series expansion for the frustrated square lattice fits the susceptibility and ESR intensity, the saturation field $H_{\rm S}\approx 32$ T implies $J_1/k_{\rm B}\approx 10.7$ K through the relation $H_{\rm S}=4J_1k_{\rm B}/(g\mu_{\rm B})$, and the heat-capacity maximum and its $T^2$ low-temperature dependence match the expectations for a 2D square lattice. The small value of $J_2$ places the system in the Néel phase of the $J_1$-$J_2$ phase diagram, and the Néel ordering at $T_{\rm N}\simeq 1.1$ K is attributed to weak interlayer couplings that are frustrated by the bilayer geometry. The paper concludes that the large ratio $\theta_{\rm CW}/T_{\rm N}\simeq 10.9$ makes this compound the best metal-organic quasi-2D square-lattice antiferromagnet reported so far.

Load-bearing premise

The fitted $J_1$ and $J_2$ assume that the measured powder susceptibility, magnetization, and heat capacity are produced entirely by the spin-1/2 $J_1$-$J_2$ square-lattice Heisenberg model with negligible interlayer coupling, so if interlayer coupling, in-plane anisotropy, or disorder are actually significant, the extracted parameters and the claimed near-perfect two-dimensionality would be weakened.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The salt provides a nearly ideal platform for quantitative tests of the spin-1/2 square-lattice Heisenberg model over a wide temperature range.
  • With $J_2$ essentially zero, the compound sits firmly in the Néel phase of the $J_1$-$J_2$ phase diagram, making its magnon spectrum a clean target for inelastic neutron scattering.
  • The linear increase of $T_{\rm N}$ with magnetic field signals a strong in-plane anisotropy that can be measured directly on single crystals and folded back into the spin Hamiltonian.
  • The extremely small interlayer coupling inferred from the ordering temperature is itself a puzzle that the bilayer frustration scenario resolves in a testable way.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the parameters survive single-crystal checks, the compound could become a reference point for how weak frustrated interlayer coupling modifies a square-lattice antiferromagnet.
  • The $T^2$ heat capacity below $T_{\rm N}$ is read as 2D magnon behavior, but the same functional form could arise from a 3D spectrum with a gap; a direct spin-wave measurement would discriminate.
  • Because $J_2$ is so small, the in-plane model is almost unfrustrated, so a subtle Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya term or bond disorder could masquerade as the anisotropy invoked to explain the linear field dependence of $T_{\rm N}$.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the synthesis, crystal structure, and magnetic characterization of polycrystalline [VO(HCOO)2·(H2O)], which the authors identify as a bilayered spin-1/2 square-lattice antiferromagnet. From fits of the magnetic susceptibility to a high-temperature series expansion for the J1-J2 square-lattice model, they obtain J1/kB ≈ 11.7 K and J2/kB ≈ 0.02 K; a saturation-field analysis gives J1/kB ≈ 10.7 K, and an ESR intensity fit gives J1/kB ≈ 10.2 K. Heat capacity shows a magnetic transition at TN ≈ 1.1 K and a T^2 dependence of Cmag below TN, which is interpreted as 2D antiferromagnetic magnon behavior. The authors use the ratio θ_CW/TN ≈ 10.9 to claim that this compound is the best metal-organic quasi-2D square-lattice realization reported so far.

Significance. If the central exchange-coupling estimate is correct, the compound is a valuable new addition to the small family of metal-organic S = 1/2 square-lattice antiferromagnets. The paper has notable strengths: three independent probes (susceptibility, saturation field, ESR) give J1 values consistent within about 1 K; the magnetic entropy release matches R ln 2; the structural analysis is careful; and the QMC simulation is reproducible using the ALPS code. The headline 'best realization' claim, however, is not yet established, because it rests on interpreting TN as controlled by very weak interlayer coupling while the paper simultaneously invokes interlayer frustration and in-plane anisotropy—neither of which is quantitatively constrained. The in-plane J1 estimate is reasonably robust; the dimensionality and record claim is the load-bearing weak point.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV and Table I] The claim that θ_CW/TN ≈ 10.9 makes this the best metal-organic quasi-2D square-lattice compound is not supported by the data as presented. The relation used to estimate J⊥ from TN (Eq. 4) yields J⊥/kB ≈ 3.3×10^-13 K, which the authors themselves call unrealistically low and several orders of magnitude smaller than dipole-dipole coupling; they attribute the discrepancy to interlayer frustration and in-plane anisotropy. If frustration or anisotropy suppresses TN, then the large θ_CW/TN does not cleanly measure weak interlayer coupling, and the record comparison in Table I becomes ambiguous. Since J⊥ (or the frustrated couplings J' and J'') is not constrained by any independent measurement or calculation, the 'best quasi-2D realization' conclusion should be either withdrawn or supported by additional evidence, such as a microscopic estimate of the interlayer exchange paths or a fit of the heat capacity with an interlayer model.
  2. [Section III A, Eq. (2)] The HTSE susceptibility fit returns two equally good solutions, J2/kB = +0.02 K and J2/kB = –0.02 K, and no uncertainties are reported for J1, J2, χ0, θ_CW, or C. The preference for solution I via the relation θ_CW = J1 + J2 uses a Curie-Weiss temperature quoted without an error bar and a difference of about 0.02 K that is well within the resolution of the fits. The paper should report confidence intervals from the fitting procedure and explicitly state that J2 is consistent with zero; the sign of J2 is not determined by the data.
  3. [Section IV, Fig. 4] The QMC simulation using a pure 2D non-frustrated square lattice clearly deviates from the measured M(H) curve in the intermediate field range. The authors attribute this departure to interlayer frustration and/or in-plane anisotropy, but the extraction of J1 from the saturation field (Eq. 5) and from the HTSE susceptibility assumes the same pure 2D J1–J2 Hamiltonian without those terms. The intermediate-field mismatch is therefore direct evidence that the model used to extract J1 is incomplete. The paper should quantify how large the neglected interlayer or anisotropy terms could be before the quoted J1 changes outside the claimed ±1 K range, or explicitly state that the quoted error bar does not include these systematic effects.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'a orthorhombic structure' should be corrected to 'an orthorhombic structure'.
  2. [Section III A and III C] The susceptibility cusp is quoted as TN ≈ 1.5 K (Fig. 3 inset) while the heat capacity anomaly is quoted as TN ≈ 1.1 K (Fig. 6); the same transition is discussed in both places and the discrepancy should be addressed or explicitly reconciled.
  3. [Eq. (5)] The notation Jc = sqrt(J1^2 + J2^2) is defined, but the simplification to HS = 4J1 kB/(g μB) for the NAF phase should be shown more explicitly, since the preceding formula contains the angle φ and wave vector (Qx, Qy), and the reader cannot easily verify the reduction.
  4. [Section III B, Fig. 5] The statement that IESR vs χ is linear over the whole measured temperature range would be strengthened by showing a linear fit with residuals or a correlation coefficient, rather than only the data points.
  5. [Section IV] The relation θ_CW = J1 + J2 for the frustrated square lattice should be accompanied by a citation or a short derivation, as it is not immediately obvious in the presence of anisotropic or further-neighbor terms.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exchange couplings are extracted from independent susceptibility, magnetization, ESR, and heat-capacity data using published model formulas, and the cited prior work by coauthors is parameter-free theory rather than fitted input.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The susceptibility is fitted to the published high-temperature series expansion for the spin-1/2 J1-J2 square-lattice model (Eq. 3), yielding J1/kB ≈ 11.7 K and J2/kB ≈ 0.02 K. The high-field saturation field HS ≈ 32 T is converted to J1/kB ≈ 10.7 K using the analytic formula HS = 4J1kB/(g muB) from Schmidt et al. (Ref. 35), which does not take the susceptibility-derived J1 as an input. The ESR intensity is fitted independently to the same HTSE, giving J1/kB ≈ 10.2 K. These are three different data sets reduced through the same external model, which constitutes a consistency test, not a self-fulfilling prediction. The QMC simulation with J/kB = 10 K is a direct comparison to the magnetization curve and is not used to derive the claimed J1. The interlayer coupling estimate from Eq. (4) is openly reported as unrealistically low and attributed to interlayer frustration, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations (Refs. 9, 10, 16, 34, 35, 46, 52) supply published formulas and comparative phenomenology; none imports an unverified uniqueness claim, and none defines the target quantity in terms of itself. The 'best quasi-2D' claim relies on interpreting the theta_CW/TN ratio and the T^2 heat-capacity behavior; whether that interpretation is fully established is an evidence and correctness question, not a circularity. No circular step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the J1-J2 square-lattice model, published HTSE coefficients, and several fitted background parameters. The most fragile assumptions are the neglect of interlayer coupling and the ad hoc attribution of the unphysical J⊥ to interlayer frustration. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • J1/kB (HTSE susceptibility fit) = 11.7 K
    Fitted to χ(T) using the spin-1/2 frustrated square lattice HTSE Eq. (3). Independent estimates from ESR and saturation field give 10.2 K and 10.7 K.
  • J2/kB (HTSE susceptibility fit) = 0.02 K (Solution I) and -0.02 K (Solution II)
    Fitted simultaneously with J1. Two equally good solutions are obtained; the positive sign is preferred using θ_CW = J1 + J2.
  • θ_CW = 12 K
    From Curie-Weiss fit of 1/χ between 110 K and 380 K. Used in the θ_CW/T_N ratio and to select the J2 sign.
  • C (Curie constant) = 0.376 cm3 K/mol
    From Curie-Weiss fit; yields μ_eff = 1.73 μB for S = 1/2 with g = 2.
  • χ0 (temperature-independent susceptibility) = -6.363e-5 cm3/mol (CW), -6.846e-5 and -6.936e-5 cm3/mol (HTSE)
    Fitted background corrections that affect the extracted J values.
  • ESR g‖ and g⊥ = 1.97 and 2.01
    Obtained by fitting powder-averaged Lorentzian line shapes; g is fixed to 2 in susceptibility and ESR intensity fits.
  • Phonon polynomial coefficients a, b, c, d = a≃18.35e-4, b≃1.61e-6, c≃6.70e-10, d≃9.90e-14 (fit units)
    Fit Cp(T) above 25 K and extrapolate to low temperature to isolate Cmag.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The spin Hamiltonian is the Heisenberg J1-J2 model on a square lattice with S = 1/2 on V4+ sites.
    Used throughout Section III. Motivated by the VO6 octahedra connected via formate bridges in Fig. 1, but no direct proof that other exchange paths are negligible.
  • standard math The high-temperature series expansion coefficients from Ref. [31] are correct for the J1-J2 square lattice and valid in the fitted range T ≥ Ji.
    Eq. (3) relies on these published coefficients. The fit range 12-380 K satisfies T ≥ J1 approximately.
  • domain assumption The powder sample is phase-pure and free of magnetic impurities; the low-T upturn in χ is due to defects.
    Section III A attributes a small upturn to defects without quantitative impurity characterization.
  • domain assumption The saturation field formula Eq. (5) applies with ordering wave vector (π,π), giving H_S = 4J1 kB/(g μB).
    Used in Section III A to derive J1 ≈ 10.7 K from H_S ≈ 32 T. Assumes the Néel antiferromagnetic phase and no interlayer frustration.
  • domain assumption Phonon heat capacity can be represented by the polynomial Eq. (7) and extrapolated to low temperature.
    Section III C uses this to obtain Cmag. Validity is checked only via the total magnetic entropy match.
  • ad hoc to paper The interlayer coupling J⊥ estimated from Eq. (4) is unreliable because of bilayer frustration, so the discrepancy is not a flaw in the 2D picture.
    Section III A obtains J⊥/kB ≈ 3.3 × 10^-13 K, called 'unrealistically low', and attributes it to interlayer frustration. This preserves the 2D square-lattice interpretation without direct evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A case study of bilayered spin-$1/2$ square lattice compound [VO(HCOO)$_2\cdot$(H$_2$O)]." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E4EL2XPC

@misc{pith2026190806032,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A case study of bilayered spin-$1/2$ square lattice compound [VO(HCOO)$_2\cdot$(H$_2$O)]},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E4EL2XPC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06032}
}
abstract

We present the synthesis and a detail investigation of structural and magnetic properties of polycrystalline [VO(HCOO)$_2\cdot$(H$_2$O)] by means of x-ray diffraction, magnetic susceptibility, high-field magnetization, heat capacity, and electron spin resonance measurements. It crystallizes in a orthorhombic structure with space group $Pcca$. It features distorted VO$_6$ octahedra connected via HCOO linker (formate anions) forming a two-dimensional square lattice network with a bilayered structure. Analysis of magnetic susceptibility, high field magnetization, and heat capacity data in terms of the frustrated square lattice model unambiguously establish quasi-two-dimensional nature of the compound with nearest neighbour interaction $J_1/k_{\rm B} \simeq 11.7$~K and next-nearest-neighbour interaction $J_2/k_{\rm B} \simeq 0.02$~K. It undergoes a N\'eel antiferromagnetic ordering at $T_{\rm N} \simeq 1.1$~K. The ratio $\theta_{\rm CW}/T_{\rm N} \simeq 10.9$ reflects excellent two-dimensionality of the spin-lattice in the compound. A strong in-plane anisotropy is inferred from the linear increase of $T_{\rm N}$ with magnetic field, consistent with the structural data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06032 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Left panel: Three dimensional view of the crystal structure showing VO(HCOO) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) Powder XRD pattern (open circles) at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Magnetization (normalized to one) vs field measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Upper panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Upper panel: Temperature dependent ESR inten [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Upper panel: Heat capacity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Manousakis ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.63.1 journal journal Rev

    author author E. Manousakis ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.63.1 journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 63 ,\ pages 1 ( year 1991 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.63.1 1991

  2. [2]

    author author M. S. \ Makivi c \' c \ and\ author H.-Q. \ Ding ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.43.3562 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 43 ,\ pages 3562 ( year 1991 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.43.3562 1991

  3. [3]

    \ Kim \ and\ author M

    author author J.-K. \ Kim \ and\ author M. Troyer ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2705 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 80 ,\ pages 2705 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.80.2705 1998

  4. [4]

    author author A. W. \ Sandvik ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.56.11678 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 56 ,\ pages 11678 ( year 1997 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.56.11678 1997

  5. [5]

    author author N. D. \ Mermin \ and\ author H. Wagner ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.17.1133 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 17 ,\ pages 1133 ( year 1966 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.17.1133 1966

  6. [6]

    Yasuda , author S

    author author C. Yasuda , author S. Todo , author K. Hukushima , author F. Alet , author M. Keller , author M. Troyer , \ and\ author H. Takayama ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.217201 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 94 ,\ pages 217201 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.94.217201

  7. [7]

    , author Schmidt, B

    author author Shannon, N. , author Schmidt, B. , author Penc, K. , \ and\ author Thalmeier, P. ,\ 10.1140/epjb/e2004-00156-3 journal journal Eur. Phys. J. B \ volume 38 ,\ pages 599 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1140/epjb/e2004-00156-3 2004

  8. [8]

    Shannon , author T

    author author N. Shannon , author T. Momoi , \ and\ author P. Sindzingre ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.027213 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 96 ,\ pages 027213 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.027213 2006

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Nath , author A

    author author R. Nath , author A. A. \ Tsirlin , author H. Rosner , \ and\ author C. Geibel ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.064422 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 78 ,\ pages 064422 ( year 2008 a ) NoStop

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    Nath , author Y

    author author R. Nath , author Y. Furukawa , author F. Borsa , author E. E. \ Kaul , author M. Baenitz , author C. Geibel , \ and\ author D. C. \ Johnston ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.80.214430 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 80 ,\ pages 214430 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    doi

  3. [11]

    Tsyrulin , author T

    author author N. Tsyrulin , author T. Pardini , author R. R. P. \ Singh , author F. Xiao , author P. Link , author A. Schneidewind , author A. Hiess , author C. P. \ Landee , author M. M. \ Turnbull , \ and\ author M. Kenzelmann ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.197201 journal journa...

    doi

  4. [12]

    author author P. A. \ Lee ,\ 10.1088/0034-4885/71/1/012501 journal journal Rep. Prog. Phys. \ volume 71 ,\ pages 012501 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007 doi

  5. [13]

    Jain , author M

    author author A. Jain , author M. Krautloher , author J. Porras , author G. Ryu , author D. Chen , author D. Abernathy , author J. Park , author A. Ivanov , author J. Chaloupka , author G. Khaliullin , author B. Keimer , \ and\ author B. Kim ,\ @noop journal journal Nat. Phys....

    2017

  6. [14]

    Pekker \ and\ author C

    author author D. Pekker \ and\ author C. Varma ,\ @noop journal journal Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. \ volume 6 ,\ pages 269 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  7. [15]

    author author P. A. \ Goddard , author J. L. \ Manson , author J. Singleton , author I. Franke , author T. Lancaster , author A. J. \ Steele , author S. J. \ Blundell , author C. Baines , author F. L. \ Pratt , author R. D. \ McDonald , author O. E. \ Ayala-Valenzuela , author...

    doi

  8. [16]

    Nath , author M

    author author R. Nath , author M. Padmanabhan , author S. Baby , author A. Thirumurugan , author D. Ehlers , author M. Hemmida , author H.-A. \ Krug von Nidda , \ and\ author A. A. \ Tsirlin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.054409 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 91 ,\ pages 054409...

    doi

  9. [17]

    author author H. M. \ R nnow , author D. F. \ McMorrow , author R. Coldea , author A. Harrison , author I. D. \ Youngson , author T. G. \ Perring , author G. Aeppli , author O. Sylju sen , author K. Lefmann , \ and\ author C. Rischel ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.037202 journal jo...

    doi

  10. [18]

    Tsyrulin , author F

    author author N. Tsyrulin , author F. Xiao , author A. Schneidewind , author P. Link , author H. M. \ R nnow , author J. Gavilano , author C. P. \ Landee , author M. M. \ Turnbull , \ and\ author M. Kenzelmann ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.81.134409 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume...

    doi

  11. [19]

    Siahatgar , author B

    author author M. Siahatgar , author B. Schmidt , \ and\ author P. Thalmeier ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.064431 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 84 ,\ pages 064431 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  12. [20]

    Lancaster , author S

    author author T. Lancaster , author S. J. \ Blundell , author M. L. \ Brooks , author P. J. \ Baker , author F. L. \ Pratt , author J. L. \ Manson , author M. M. \ Conner , author F. Xiao , author C. P. \ Landee , author F. A. \ Chaves , author S. Soriano , author M. A. \ Nova...

    doi

  13. [21]

    Lefebvre , author P

    author author S. Lefebvre , author P. Wzietek , author S. Brown , author C. Bourbonnais , author D. J\'erome , author C. M\'ezi\`ere , author M. Fourmigu\'e , \ and\ author P. Batail ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.5420 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 85 ,\ pages 5420 ( ye...

    doi

  14. [22]

    \ Nam , author A

    author author M.-S. \ Nam , author A. Ardavan , author S. J. \ Blundell , \ and\ author J. A. \ Schlueter ,\ @noop journal journal Nature \ volume 449 ,\ pages 584 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007

  15. [23]

    author author K. Y. \ T. Ishiguro \ and\ author G.Saito ,\ @noop title Organic Superconductors ,\ edition 2nd \ ed.\ ( publisher Springer ,\ address Berlin ,\ year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006

  16. [24]

    author author R. S. \ Manna , author M. de Souza , author A. Br\"uhl , author J. A. \ Schlueter , \ and\ author M. Lang ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.016403 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 104 ,\ pages 016403 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    doi

  17. [25]

    Mootz \ and\ author R

    author author D. Mootz \ and\ author R. Seidel ,\ @noop journal journal Acta Crystallogr., Sect. C \ volume 43 ,\ pages 1218 ( year 1987 ) NoStop

    1987

  18. [26]

    author author T. R. \ Gilson ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jssc.1995.1256 journal journal J. Solid State Chem \ volume 117 ,\ pages 136 ( year 1995 ) NoStop

    1995

  19. [27]

    Rodríguez-Carvajal ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0921-4526(93)90108-I journal journal Physica B: Condens

    author author J. Rodríguez-Carvajal ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0921-4526(93)90108-I journal journal Physica B: Condens. Matter \ volume 192 ,\ pages 55 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

    1993 doi

  20. [28]

    @noop title ALPS project , \ howpublished http://alps.comp-phys.org/ NoStop

  21. [29]

    author author A. W. \ Sandvik ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.59.R14157 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 59 ,\ pages R14157 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

    1999 doi

  22. [30]

    Alet , author S

    author author F. Alet , author S. Wessel , \ and\ author M. Troyer ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevE.71.036706 journal journal Phys. Rev. E \ volume 71 ,\ pages 036706 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005 doi

  23. [31]

    Pollet , author S

    author author L. Pollet , author S. M. A. \ Rombouts , author K. Van Houcke , \ and\ author K. Heyde ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevE.70.056705 journal journal Phys. Rev. E \ volume 70 ,\ pages 056705 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004 doi

  24. [32]

    Domb \ and\ author A

    author author C. Domb \ and\ author A. R. \ Miedema ,\ @noop title Progress in Low Temperature Physics ,\ edited by\ editor C. J. \ Gorter ,\ Vol. volume 4 \ ( publisher North Holland ,\ address Amsterdam ,\ year 1964 ) NoStop

    1964

  25. [33]

    Rosner , author R

    author author H. Rosner , author R. R. P. \ Singh , author W. H. \ Zheng , author J. Oitmaa , \ and\ author W. E. \ Pickett ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.67.014416 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 67 ,\ pages 014416 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003 doi

  26. [34]

    \ Schmidt , author A

    author author H.-J. \ Schmidt , author A. Lohmann , \ and\ author J. Richter ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.104443 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 84 ,\ pages 104443 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    Majlis , author S

    author author N. Majlis , author S. Selzer , \ and\ author G. C. \ Strinati ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.45.7872 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 45 ,\ pages 7872 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

    1992 doi

  28. [36]

    Schmidt \ and\ author P

    author author B. Schmidt \ and\ author P. Thalmeier ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.214443 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 96 ,\ pages 214443 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Schmidt , author P

    author author B. Schmidt , author P. Thalmeier , \ and\ author N. Shannon ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.125113 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 76 ,\ pages 125113 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007 doi

  30. [38]

    @noop note The fitting results in a 18.35 10^ -4 mol ^ -1 K ^ -4 , b 1.61 10^ -6 mol ^ -1 K ^ -6 , c 6.70 10^ -10 mol ^ -1 K ^ -8 , and d 9.90 10^ -14 mol ^ -1 K ^ -10 NoStop

  31. [39]

    Matsumoto , author Y

    author author T. Matsumoto , author Y. Miyazaki , author A. S. Albrecht , author C. P. Landee , author M. M. Turnbull , \ and\ author M. Sorai ,\ 10.1021/jp0020081 journal journal J. Phys. Chem. B \ volume 104 ,\ pages 9993 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

    doi

  32. [40]

    Kobayashi \ and\ author T

    author author H. Kobayashi \ and\ author T. Haseda ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of the Physical Society of Japan \ volume 18 ,\ pages 541 ( year 1963 ) NoStop

    1963

  33. [41]

    Yamagata \ and\ author H

    author author K. Yamagata \ and\ author H. Abe ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-8853(83)90852-1 journal journal J. Magn. Magn. Mater. \ volume 31 ,\ pages 1179 ( year 1983 ) NoStop

    1983 doi

  34. [42]

    Koyama , author H

    author author K. Koyama , author H. Nobumasa , \ and\ author M. Matsuura ,\ 10.1143/JPSJ.56.1553 journal journal J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \ volume 56 ,\ pages 1553 ( year 1987 ) NoStop

    1987 doi

  35. [43]

    author author S. C. \ Abrahams ,\ 10.1063/1.1732318 journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 36 ,\ pages 56 ( year 1962 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1732318 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1732318 NoStop

    1962 doi

  36. [44]

    Algra , author L

    author author H. Algra , author L. de Jongh , \ and\ author R. Carlin ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-4363(78)90107-9 journal journal Physica B+C \ volume 93 ,\ pages 24 ( year 1978 ) NoStop

    1978 doi

  37. [45]

    author author F. M. \ Woodward , author P. J. \ Gibson , author G. B. \ Jameson , author C. P. \ Landee , author M. M. \ Turnbull , \ and\ author R. D. \ Willett ,\ 10.1021/ic0621392 journal journal Inorganic Chemistry \ volume 46 ,\ pages 4256 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    doi

  38. [46]

    author author J. L. \ Manson , author M. M. \ Conner , author J. A. \ Schlueter , author T. Lancaster , author S. J. \ Blundell , author M. L. \ Brooks , author F. L. \ Pratt , author T. Papageorgiou , author A. D. \ Bianchi , author J. Wosnitza , \ and\ author M.-H. \ Whangbo...

    doi

  39. [47]

    author author F. M. \ Woodward , author A. S. \ Albrecht , author C. M. \ Wynn , author C. P. \ Landee , \ and\ author M. M. \ Turnbull ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.65.144412 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 65 ,\ pages 144412 ( year 2002 ) NoStop

    doi

  40. [48]

    Nath , author A

    author author R. Nath , author A. A. \ Tsirlin , author E. E. \ Kaul , author M. Baenitz , author N. B\"uttgen , author C. Geibel , \ and\ author H. Rosner ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.024418 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 78 ,\ pages 024418 ( year 2008 b ) NoStop

    doi

  41. [49]

    Bernu \ and\ author G

    author author B. Bernu \ and\ author G. Misguich ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.63.134409 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 63 ,\ pages 134409 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    2001 doi

  42. [50]

    uninger , author A. Freimuth , author G. S. \ Uhrig , \ and\ author E. Br\

    author author M. Hofmann , author T. Lorenz , author K. Berggold , author M. Gr\"uninger , author A. Freimuth , author G. S. \ Uhrig , \ and\ author E. Br\"uck ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.67.184502 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 67 ,\ pages 184502 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    doi

  43. [51]

    Oitmaa \ and\ author E

    author author J. Oitmaa \ and\ author E. Bornilla ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.53.14228 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 53 ,\ pages 14228 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

    1996 doi

  44. [52]

    author author D. C. \ Johnston , author R. K. \ Kremer , author M. Troyer , author X. Wang , author A. Kl\"umper , author S. L. \ Bud'ko , author A. F. \ Panchula , \ and\ author P. C. \ Canfield ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.61.9558 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 61 ,\ pages 955...

    doi

  45. [53]

    author author L. J. \ de Jongh ,\ @noop title Magnetic properties of layered transition metal compounds ,\ Vol. volume 9 \ ( publisher Springer ,\ address Dordrecht ,\ year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  46. [54]

    Nath , author K

    author author R. Nath , author K. M. \ Ranjith , author B. Roy , author D. C. \ Johnston , author Y. Furukawa , \ and\ author A. A. \ Tsirlin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.90.024431 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 90 ,\ pages 024431 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    doi

  47. [55]

    author author J. A. \ Eisele \ and\ author F. Keffer ,\ 10.1103/PhysRev.96.929 journal journal Phys. Rev. \ volume 96 ,\ pages 929 ( year 1954 ) NoStop

    1954 doi

  48. [56]

    Kitaoka , author T

    author author Y. Kitaoka , author T. Kobayashi , author A. Kōda , author H. Wakabayashi , author Y. Niino , author H. Yamakage , author S. Taguchi , author K. Amaya , author K. Yamaura , author M. Takano , author A. Hirano , \ and\ author R. Kanno ,\ 10.1143/JPSJ.67.3703 journ...

    doi

  49. [57]

    author author A. P. \ Ramirez , author G. P. \ Espinosa , \ and\ author A. S. \ Cooper ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.64.2070 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 64 ,\ pages 2070 ( year 1990 ) NoStop

    1990 doi

Pith tools

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