Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Spin amplitude wave due to dipole-quadrupole hybridization in spin-1 pyrochlore magnets

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spin-1 pyrochlore magnets can order into dipole-quadrupole amplitude waves.

desk verdict Genuinely new amplitude-wave phases in a microscopically derived spin-1 pyrochlore model, but their survival beyond the SU(3) ansatz and the material parameters are both open questions. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15969 v2 pith:GYL65BPM submitted 2024-11-24 cond-mat.str-el

Hiroki Nakai , Chisa Hotta This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords pseudospin-1pyrochloremagnetamplitudewavespin-densitydipole-quadrupolehybridizationsingle-ionanisotropySU(3)coherentstateFe2+spineloxidequadrupolarorder
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 sets out to show that a quantum spin-1 pyrochlore magnet with anisotropic exchange and easy-plane single-ion anisotropy has two ground states, AW-I and AW-II, in which the size of the magnetic moment is spatially modulated: two sublattices carry large moments and two carry small ones in AW-I, one large and three small in AW-II, while the quadrupole moments are distributed in the same sublattice-selective pattern. The driving mechanism is the bond-dependent $J_{z\pm}$ interaction, which on one side of a bond wants a well-developed $S^z$ dipole and on the other side wants the moment suppressed to avoid the cost of the anisotropy $D_z$. Taking Fe$^{2+}$ spinel oxides GeFe$_2$O$_4$ and $\gamma$-SiFe$_2$O$_4$ as targets, the paper evaluates realistic exchange parameters and finds that when direct Fe--Fe hopping dominates, $J_{z\pm}$ is the largest exchange term, placing these materials in the amplitude-wave regime. This would make the experimentally observed amplitude-modulated spin-density waves in those compounds a genuine microscopic consequence of the model rather than a lattice-distortion or nesting effect. If the claim holds, insulating magnets join itinerant systems as hosts of amplitude-modulated magnetic order, here realized as a coexistence of a dipolar solid-like component and a quadrupolar liquid-like component.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pseudospin-1 pyrochlore Hamiltonian, Eq. (1), with bond-dependent exchange couplings $\{J_{zz}, J_\pm, J_{\pm\pm}, J_{z\pm}\}$ and a single-ion term $D_z (S^z)^2$; all analysis runs through its per-tetrahedron form, Eq. (5), whose classical solutions organize by the irreducible representations of $T_d$. The variational tool that opens the amplitude sector is the SU(3) coherent state, Eq. (7), whose parameters allow the dipole magnitude $M$ to shrink below 1 while keeping full account of the five quadrupole operators, something the SU(2) states of fixed $M=1$ cannot do. Material placement rests on the microscopic derivation in the appendices: a point-charge estimate $\Delta_{\rm tri}\simeq 19$ meV fixes $D_z$, and the hopping calculation at direct-hopping fraction $x=1$ gives $J_{z\pm}$ as the dominant exchange.

What would settle it

Compute the ground state of Eq. (1) on a single tetrahedron or small cluster by exact diagonalization or a tensor-network method at, for example, $J_{z\pm}=1.5$ and $D_z$ inside the AW window: if the 2:2 or 1:3 moment split disappears, the SU(3) mean-field conclusion fails. Independently, measure the trigonal splitting of GeFe$_2$O$_4$ by optical or X-ray absorption; a value near 118 meV rather than about 19 meV would move the material out of the AW regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the SU(3) coherent-state mean-field treatment of Eq. (1), the claim is that for finite easy-plane anisotropy $D_z$ and sufficiently large $J_{z\pm}$, the ground state is not the uniform splayed ferromagnet or a quantum paramagnet but an amplitude wave: the tetrahedron lowers its symmetry and fragments into sublattices with large dipole moments and sublattices with suppressed dipole moments, with the quadrupole expectation values following the same 2:2 or 1:3 pattern. The energy accounting shows that the large-moment sites pay the $D_z$ cost while earning the $J_{z\pm}$ exchange gain, and the small-moment sites do the opposite, so the competition is resolved by spatial fragmentation rather than by uniformly reducing all moments. The AW-I and AW-II orders mix different irreducible representations of the tetrahedral point group, and the paper shows that they disappear when the SU(3) variational space is restricted to SU(2) states, which is the sense in which quadrupoles are essential to the phase.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the SU(3) product states span the true ground state when dipole amplitudes are reduced, together with the point-charge value $\Delta_{\rm tri}\simeq 19$ meV that places the real materials in the $J_{z\pm}$-dominant regime.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Amplitude-modulated spin-density waves would be available to Mott insulators without any metallic Fermi surface or nesting condition, since the modulation here is a product of anisotropic exchange and single-ion anisotropy.
  • The experimentally observed spin-density waves in GeFe$_2$O$_4$ and $\gamma$-SiFe$_2$O$_4$ could be identified with the AW phases, providing a concrete microscopic model for the reported frustration-wave order.
  • The quadrupolar degrees of freedom would be physically decisive rather than passive: the AW phases vanish when the variational manifold is restricted to SU(2) states of full moment.
  • Direct Fe--Fe hopping, not oxygen-mediated superexchange, is the parameter regime that favors the AW state, and it makes the global-frame couplings $J$, $K$, and $\Gamma$ comparable in size.
  • The AW-to-quantum-paramagnet transitions are discontinuous, so signatures such as specific-heat jumps or hysteretic field sweeps should appear where the phase boundary is crossed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A test beyond the paper's own methods would be exact diagonalization or tensor-network calculations on finite clusters of Eq. (1); the paper does not provide this check, so the survival of the AW phases away from product states is an open question.
  • The material placement inherits the paper's disputed value of the trigonal splitting; a spectroscopic measurement near 19 meV versus 118 meV would determine whether GeFe$_2$O$_4$ actually sits in the AW window.
  • The model suggests a tuning strategy: varying the trigonal distortion or the A-site chemistry of a spinel should move a material between AW-I, AW-II, and the quantum paramagnet, making the 2:2 to 1:3 switch a tunable feature.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a pseudospin-1 pyrochlore model for Fe2+-based spinel oxides such as GeFe2O4 and gamma-SiFe2O4. Starting from the d6 atomic multiplet and including Coulomb interaction, cubic and trigonal crystal fields, spin-orbit coupling, and hopping, the authors derive an effective Hamiltonian consisting of anisotropic exchange terms and an easy-plane single-ion anisotropy. Using an SU(3) coherent-state variational ansatz, they obtain a mean-field phase diagram containing, in addition to the previously known AIAO, Gamma5, PC, SFM, and quantum paramagnetic phases, two amplitude-wave phases AW-I and AW-II in which dipolar and quadrupolar moments are distributed among sublattices in 2:2 and 1:3 patterns. They argue that the Jz±-dominated parameter regime evaluated for the two spinels, especially with direct hopping alone, places these compounds in the AW regime and thus provides a concrete microscopic account of the observed spin-density waves.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper identifies a genuinely new mechanism: in insulating spin-1 magnets, anisotropic exchange and easy-plane single-ion anisotropy can produce spatially modulated hybrids of dipolar and quadrupolar moments, without requiring metallic nesting or lattice distortion. The microscopic derivation in Appendix A is unusually complete: the multiplet structure, Kugel-Khomskii exchange, projection onto the Jeff=1 subspace, and the bookkeeping of the small quadrupolar terms are all displayed. The paper also gives analytic critical fields for the Gamma5-QP and PC-QP transitions, and the material parameters are estimated rather than fitted to the target experimental phases, so the prediction is not a disguised fit. These strengths make the work potentially important for the frustrated-magnetism and spin-orbital physics communities. The main open question is whether the AW phases survive beyond the product-state variational manifold.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III.B-D, Eq. (7)] The AW-I and AW-II phases are established only within the SU(3) product-state ansatz of Eq. (7), and the paper explicitly notes that they disappear in the SU(2)-restricted treatment (Fig. 2(a)). This is not circular, but it makes the central existence claim depend on a variational manifold whose completeness in the M<1 amplitude sector is not demonstrated. No exact-diagonalization, DMRG, iPEPS, or linear flavor-wave stability analysis is provided, so it is possible that the 2:2 and 1:3 large/small moment patterns are artifacts of the product-state restriction. I would ask for at least a linear flavor-wave calculation around the AW states or a small-cluster ED check of Eq. (1) in the parameter region of Fig. 2 to show that the new phases survive inter-site quantum fluctuations.
  2. [Appendix B3 and Table I] The material-specific identification of GeFe2O4 and gamma-SiFe2O4 as AW candidates depends on the trigonal splitting Delta_tri ~ 19 meV obtained from a point-charge model with Delta_tri/Delta_cub = 0.015. This conflicts with the susceptibility-based estimate Delta_tri = 118 meV of Ref. [58]. The paper argues that the larger value is unlikely because it would give Delta_tri/Delta_cub ~ 0.09, comparable to Eu2Ir2O7, but this is a plausibility argument rather than a direct experimental determination. Since this value controls both the single-ion anisotropy Dz and the Jz±-dominant exchange hierarchy in Table I that places the compounds in the AW regime, the material claim needs either an independent determination of Delta_tri or a sensitivity analysis showing that the AW regime is robust across the 19-118 meV range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I caption] The caption contains the typo 'Exchange paraneters'; it should read 'Exchange parameters'.
  2. [Sec. III.C and Fig. 2(b,c)] The notation for the order parameters in Fig. 2(b,c) is introduced only later in Sec. III.D and Appendix C; a sentence pointing to Table III when the figure is first referenced would improve readability.
  3. [Eq. (5)] The dot product in the term m_T1^(1) . m_T1^(2) is not explicitly defined; clarifying that it is a contraction over the three components of the T1 vectors would help.
  4. [Appendix B3] The text contains the typo 'absorbtion' in 'optical absorbtion measurement'; it should be 'absorption'.
  5. [Appendix D2] The reduction of the four-parameter state to three parameters via eta = phi is justified only because quadrupole exchange is discarded and the single-ion anisotropy has U(1) symmetry about the local z axis. This assumption should be stated explicitly in the main text, since it is load-bearing for the variational parametrization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the AW phases are variational outputs of Eq. (1) and the material parameters are independently estimated, not fitted to the claimed SDW phases.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The effective pseudospin-1 Hamiltonian Eq. (1) is derived in Appendix A from the atomic multiplet 5T2g via a Kugel-Khomskii exchange Hamiltonian and a projection onto the Jeff = 1 manifold, with stated inputs (Coulomb interaction, cubic and trigonal CEF, SOC, hopping amplitudes). The amplitude-wave phases are outputs of a SU(3) coherent-state variational minimization of Eq. (1), and the paper shows explicitly that they disappear in the SU(2)-restricted treatment (Fig. 2(a)). This is a variational restriction and a possible correctness risk, but it is not circular: the 2:2 and 1:3 sublattice fragmentations are not programmed into the SU(3) ansatz, which only allows the dipole amplitude M to vary on each site. Material parameters in Table I are computed from Slater-Koster integrals and a point-charge estimate of the trigonal distortion, and the paper argues against a previously published larger Delta_tri value on physical grounds; this is an assumption/selection, not a fit of a parameter to the target AW phases or to the experimental SDW modulation. The explanation of the AW origin in Section IV uses the mean-field energy decomposition after the phases were found, so it does not define the phases into existence. No load-bearing result is justified by a self-citation chain: the cited prior work [29,38,51] supplies methods and generic model frameworks, while the AW phases themselves are new outputs of the present variational calculation. Thus no step reduces by construction to its inputs; the residual concerns are about variational completeness and parameter uncertainty, which belong to correctness risk rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central output is an ordering prediction; it introduces no new particle, force, or conserved quantity, so the invented-entities ledger is empty. The cost of the derivation sits in (i) the variational ansatz and (ii) the material-parameter chain. Eight hand-set or estimated inputs enter: UC~3 eV, JC/Delta_JC rounded from Slater-Condon values, lambda=0.020 eV vs 0.013 eV literature, Delta_cub=1.0 eV vs 1.26 eV, hopping amplitudes to=td=0.40 eV, the direct-hopping fraction x (with x=1 chosen as the AW-favorable case), the trigonal distortion eta from Ref. 27 feeding a point-charge estimate of Delta_tri, and the fixed phase-diagram plane (Jzz,J±,J±±)=(-1,0.4,0.2). The key assumptions are the energy-scale hierarchy (Eq. 3), the completeness of the SU(3) product-state manifold, and the point-charge model for the trigonal CEF; all are stated but none is independently verified.

free parameters (8)
  • UC (Kanamori interorbital interaction U'K) = approx 3 eV (assumed)
    Appendix B1: 'we expect it to be typically ~3 eV'. Sets the Coulomb scale for the perturbation expansion and scales all exchange couplings.
  • JC and Delta_JC (Coury parameters) = JC=1.0 eV, Delta_JC=0.1 eV
    Appendix B1: rounded from Slater-Condon values JC=0.935 eV, Delta_JC=0.129 eV (Ref. 57); enter all Kugel-Khomskii exchange coefficients.
  • Spin-orbit coupling lambda = 0.020 eV
    Appendix B1: set to 0.020 eV, 'roughly estimated' from lambda=0.013 eV (Refs. 49-50). Controls the p_i, q_i coefficients of the Jeff=1 states.
  • Cubic CEF Delta_cub = 1.0 eV (calculation), 1.26 eV (Delta_tri estimate)
    Appendix B1/B3: set to 1.0 eV for the exchange calculation, but Delta_tri~19 meV is obtained from Delta_cub=1.26 eV; minor internal inconsistency.
  • Hopping amplitudes to, td = to=0.40 eV, td=-0.40 eV
    Appendix B2: set 'following the typical treatment'; determine the magnitudes of all four exchange couplings and the x=0 vs x=1 hierarchy.
  • Direct-hopping fraction x = x=1 (direct hopping only) for the AW-favorable material row
    Appendix B2/B4 and Table I: x is not pinned by any experiment; x=1 is presented as 'favorable for the realization of AWs'.
  • Phase-diagram plane (Jzz, J±, J±±) = (-1, 0.4, 0.2)
    Section III.C, Fig. 2(a): the full phase diagram is shown only on this plane; the estimated material parameters have J±<0 and J±±>|J±|, so the material point is not displayed.
  • Trigonal distortion eta = 0.012 (GeFe2O4), 0.036 (gamma-SiFe2O4)
    Appendix B3: taken from Ref. 27; via the point-charge model gives Delta_tri/Delta_cub=0.015/0.035, setting the SIA strength Dz and the trigonal hopping renormalization.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Energy-scale hierarchy: HCoulomb, Hcub_CEF (~1 eV) >> Hkin (~100 meV) >> HSOC ~ Htri_CEF (~10 meV) (Eq. 3)
    Section II.B: justifies second-order perturbation in Hkin and projection onto the Jeff=1 multiplet; if broken, the effective Hamiltonian (1) is incomplete.
  • domain assumption The SU(3) product-state ansatz (Eq. 7) spans the ground-state manifold, including M<1 amplitude states
    Section III.B-C: all AW phases are found within this variational manifold; no beyond-mean-field check is provided.
  • domain assumption Point-charge model for the trigonal CEF gives Delta_tri/Delta_cub=0.015 (GeFe2O4) and 0.035 (gamma-SiFe2O4)
    Appendix B3: yields Delta_tri~19 meV and contradicts the susceptibility-based Delta_tri=118 meV (Ref. 58); Dz and the exchange hierarchy both depend on this value.
  • domain assumption Quadrupole-exchange and single-ion quadrupolar terms from SOC are negligible in the Jeff=1 subspace
    Section II.B and Appendix A4 (Eq. A29): one to two orders of magnitude smaller than dipole exchange; the claim matters because the AW phases carry quadrupolar character.
  • standard math Second-order Kugel-Khomskii perturbation theory with Slater-Koster hoppings
    Appendix A2: standard microscopic derivation of spin-orbital exchange; accepted background method.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin amplitude wave due to dipole-quadrupole hybridization in spin-1 pyrochlore magnets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GYL65BPM

@misc{pith2026241115969,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin amplitude wave due to dipole-quadrupole hybridization in spin-1 pyrochlore magnets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GYL65BPM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15969}
}
abstract

We explore the quantum pseudospin-1 pyrochlore magnet featuring Fe$^{2+}$-based spinel oxides that addresses the formation of amplitude-modulated spin-density waves. We propose that the relatively small spin-orbit coupling and the small extra crystal field splitting in these materials create anisotropic exchange interactions and strong single-ion anisotropy, respectively, whose interplay becomes the source of quadrupolar moments selectively appearing on certain sublattices, leading to a spatially modulated hybrid of dipolar and quadrupolar moments. This mechanism represents the possibility of insulating magnets to form an exotic phase with coexisting liquid-solid properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15969 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Atomic multiplet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Phase diagram at ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (b), the order parameters of the same irreps have nonzero values; in the AW-I phase, we find B2 with ⟨S1⟩ = − ⟨S2⟩ = ML(sin α, 0, cos α), ⟨S3⟩ = − ⟨S4⟩ = MS(0, 1, 0), (11) and for AW-II phase, A2 with ⟨S1⟩ = ML(0, 0, 1), ⟨S2⟩ = MS(sin α, 0, cos α), ⟨S3⟩ = MS(− sin α/2, √ 3 sin α/2, cos α), ⟨S4⟩ = MS(− sin α/2, − √ 3 sin α/2, cos α), (12) where ML = 1 ≥ MS. To understand the origin of the AW states, we exam￾ine the e… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a)]. The interactions on the remaining two bonds are obtained by permutation of {x, y, z}. Let us consider the four-sites (two magnetic ions + two ligand ions) problem for the z bond [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Energy spectrum of the Hamiltonian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Octahdron surrounding the magnetic ion (black circle) at sublattice [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [58]

    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 FeI2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 267201 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    MTwHjXhCzTj58fylZw43vTuYNbE=

    Single-ion parameters We first outline the material parameters for on-site atomic Hamiltonian (2). The Coulomb interaction pa- rameters (A2) are determined as follows: Part of the Slater-Condon parameters for the Fe 2+ ion are known, F 2 = 9 .7 eV and F 4 = 6 .1 eV [57], and the corre- sponding Coury parameters are, JC = 0 .935 eV and 14 GeFe 2O4 <latexit...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Yhj+SUM2fwqmMGC3l1vKfBNubvk=

    Kugel-Khomskii Hamiltonian The exchange interactions between the above 5T2g multiplet are described by the Kugel-Khomskii model HKK. Here we derive this model by considering Hkin as a perturbative term for HCoulomb + Hcub CEF and show its bond- dependent nature by virtue of spatial anisotropy of orbitals. To represent the model, the following orbital oper...

    work page

  4. [3]

    EMBb1JK6aT3Fc6ljd4pmwpAaqHo=

    Spin-orbit coupling and trigonal crystalline electric field We now consider the SOC and trigonal CEF, which are the third and the fourth terms atomic Hamiltonian (2), respectively, both having the energy scale of order 10 meV. We first include the SOC term, which is expressed within the 5T2g manifold as HSOC = −λLeff · S, λ < 0. (A17) The effective angula...

    work page

  5. [4]

    + B∥Lz 1Lz 4 + B′(Lx 1 Ly 4 + Ly 1Lx 4 ) + B′′(Lx 1 Lz 4 − Lz 1Lx 4 + Ly 1Lz 4 − Lz 1Ly 4) + C1Q3z2−r2 1 Q3z2−r2 4 + C2Qx2−y2 1 Qx2−y2 4 + C3(Qyz 1 Qyz 4 + Qzx 1 Qzx 4 ) + C4Qxy 1 Qxy 4 + D1(Q3z2−r2 1 Qxy 4 + Qxy 1 Q3z2−r2 4 ) + D2(Qyz 1 Qzx 4 + Qzx 1 Qyz 4 ) + E1(Q3z2−r2 1 Qyz 4 − Qyz 1 Q3z2−r2 4 + Q3z2−r2 1 Qzx 4 − Qzx 1 Q3z2−r2 4 ) + E2(Qx2−y2 1 Qyz 4 ...

    work page

  6. [5]

    This Hamiltonian is obtained by projecting the Kugel-Khomskii Hamiltonian (A10) onto the Jeff = 1 manifold, Heff = PJeff =1HKKPJeff =1

    Low-energy effective Hamiltonian for pseudospin-1 states Our final goal is to derive the low-energy effective Hamiltonian of the Jeff = 1 subspace. This Hamiltonian is obtained by projecting the Kugel-Khomskii Hamiltonian (A10) onto the Jeff = 1 manifold, Heff = PJeff =1HKKPJeff =1. Let us first consider the case without the trigonal crystal field in the ...

    work page

  7. [6]

    J.-R. Li, J. Lee, W. Huang, S. Burchesky, B. Shteynas, F. C ¸ . Top, A. O. Jamison, and W. Ketterle, A stripe phase with supersolid properties in spin–orbit-coupled Bose–Einstein condensates, Nature 543, 91–94 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [7]

    Inter-atomic parameters For Hkin in Eq.(A12), there are two kinds of hop- pings; the oxygen-mediated hopping and direct hopping between the magnetic ions. They are expressed by Slater- Koster parameters ( tpdσ, tpdπ, tddσ, tddπ, tddδ) [59] and the charge transfer energy ∆ pd between p orbitals of lig- and ions and d orbitals of magnetic ions. We set the h...

    work page

Show all 71 references
  1. [8]

    The effect of this distortion is included in Htri CEF and Hoxy kin

    T rigonal distortion effect We now illustrate how the trigonal distortion of the lig- and octahedron is treated and reflected in the parameters when taking a projection. The effect of this distortion is included in Htri CEF and Hoxy kin . When the magnetic ion is positioned at...

  2. [9]

    Results Let us present the model parameters obtained as func- tions of these material parameters. Figure 6(c) shows the exchange parameters for the three cases; oxygen- mediated hoppings only (x = 0), oxygen-mediated/direct hoppings being equivalent ( x = 0.5), and direct hopp...

  3. [10]

    Figure 5(b) shows these parameters as a function of ∆ tri/|λ|

    When we take the fictitiously large limit of the trigonal crystal field, ∆tri → +∞, we find p2 = q2 = 1, and in the opposite limit, ∆tri → −∞, p1 = q1 = 1. Figure 5(b) shows these parameters as a function of ∆ tri/|λ|. Since the octahedral compression favors Lz eff = 0, p2 2 a...

  4. [11]

    SU(3) coherent state In this section, we consider a single S = 1 state. The general spin-1 state is expressed by an SU(3) coherent state with four parameters, {ξ1, ξ2, ξ3, ξ4}: |ψ⟩ = eiξ3 cos ξ2 sin ξ1 |+1⟩ + cos ξ1 |0⟩ + eiξ4 sin ξ2 sin ξ1 |−1⟩ , (D1) where |±1⟩ and |0⟩ are e...

  5. [12]

    (D7) 17 TABLE III

    Representation of SU(3) coherent state with uniaxial symmetry Now, since we are working on a case where the ampli- tude of the dipolar moment can vary between 0 and 1, it is convenient to parametrize the expectation value of the spin operators as ⟨S⟩ = M   sin θ cos φ sin θ...

  6. [13]

    A. F. Andreev and I. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Theory of Defects in Crystals, Sov. Phys. JETP 29, 1107 (1969)

    1969

  7. [14]

    A. J. Leggett, Can a Solid Be ”Superfluid”?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 1543–1546 (1970)

    1970

  8. [15]

    Kim and M

    E. Kim and M. H. W. Chan, Probable observation of a supersolid helium phase, Nature 427, 225–227 (2004)

    2004

  9. [16]

    D. Y. Kim and M. H. W. Chan, Absence of Supersolidity in Solid Helium in Porous Vycor Glass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 155301 (2012)

    2012

  10. [17]

    Leonard, A

    J. Leonard, A. Morales, P. Zupancic, T. Esslinger, and T. Donner, Supersolid formation in a quantum gas break- ing a continuous translational symmetry, Nature 543, 87–90 (2017)

    2017

  11. [18]

    Tanzi, S

    L. Tanzi, S. Roccuzzo, E. Lucioni, F. Fam` a, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, G. Modugno, A. Recati, and S. Stringari, Supersolid symmetry breaking from compressional oscil- lations in a dipolar quantum gas, Nature 574, 382–385 (2019)

    2019

  12. [19]

    M. A. Norcia, C. Politi, L. Klaus, E. Poli, M. Sohmen, M. J. Mark, R. N. Bisset, L. Santos, and F. Ferlaino, Two-dimensional supersolidity in a dipolar quantum gas, Nature 596, 357–361 (2021)

    2021

  13. [20]

    Matsuda and T

    H. Matsuda and T. Tsuneto, Off-Diagonal Long-Range Order in Solids, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 46, 411–436 (1970)

    1970

  14. [21]

    Liu and M

    K.-S. Liu and M. E. Fisher, Quantum lattice gas and the existence of a supersolid, J. Low Temp. Phys. 10, 655– 683 (1973)

    1973

  15. [22]

    Wessel and M

    S. Wessel and M. Troyer, Supersolid Hard-Core Bosons on the Triangular Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 127205 (2005)

    2005

  16. [23]

    Heidarian and K

    D. Heidarian and K. Damle, Persistent Supersolid Phase of Hard-Core Bosons on the Triangular Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 127206 (2005)

    2005

  17. [24]

    R. G. Melko, A. Paramekanti, A. A. Burkov, A. Vish- wanath, D. N. Sheng, and L. Balents, Supersolid Order from Disorder: Hard-Core Bosons on the Triangular Lat- tice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 127207 (2005)

    2005

  18. [25]

    Boninsegni and N

    M. Boninsegni and N. Prokof’ev, Supersolid Phase of Hard-Core Bosons on a Triangular Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 237204 (2005)

    2005

  19. [26]

    Hotta and N

    C. Hotta and N. Furukawa, Strong coupling theory of the spinless charges on triangular lattices: Possible for- mation of a gapless charge-ordered liquid, Phys. Rev. B 74, 193107 (2006)

    2006

  20. [27]

    Heidarian and A

    D. Heidarian and A. Paramekanti, Supersolidity in the Triangular Lattice Spin-1/2 XXZ Model: A Variational Perspective, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 015301 (2010)

    2010

  21. [28]

    Yamamoto, G

    D. Yamamoto, G. Marmorini, and I. Danshita, Quantum Phase Diagram of the Triangular-Lattice XXZ Model in a Magnetic Field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 127203 (2014)

    2014

  22. [29]

    Yamamoto, G

    D. Yamamoto, G. Marmorini, and I. Danshita, Micro- scopic Model Calculations for the Magnetization Process of Layered Triangular-Lattice Quantum Antiferromag- nets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 027201 (2015)

    2015

  23. [30]

    Sellmann, X.-F

    D. Sellmann, X.-F. Zhang, and S. Eggert, Phase diagram of the antiferromagnetic XXZ model on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B 91, 081104 (2015)

    2015

  24. [31]

    Xiang, C

    J. Xiang, C. Zhang, Y. Gao, W. Schmidt, K. Schmalzl, C.-W. Wang, B. Li, N. Xi, X.-Y. Liu, H. Jin, G. Li, J. Shen, Z. Chen, Y. Qi, Y. Wan, W. Jin, W. Li, P. Sun, and G. Su, Giant magnetocaloric effect in spin supersolid candidate Na2BaCo(PO4)2, Nature 625, 270–275 (2024)

    2024

  25. [32]

    M. E. Brooks-Bartlett, S. T. Banks, L. D. C. Jaubert, A. Harman-Clarke, and P. C. W. Holdsworth, Magnetic- Moment Fragmentation and Monopole Crystallization, Phys. Rev. X 4, 011007 (2014)

    2014

  26. [33]

    Petit, E

    S. Petit, E. Lhotel, B. Canals, M. Ciomaga Hatnean, J. Ollivier, H. Mutka, E. Ressouche, A. Wildes, M. R. Lees, and G. Balakrishnan, Observation of magnetic frag- mentation in spin ice, Nat. Phys. 12, 746–750 (2016)

    2016

  27. [34]

    J. A. M. Paddison, H. S. Ong, J. O. Hamp, P. Mukher- jee, X. Bai, M. G. Tucker, N. P. Butch, C. Castelnovo, 19 M. Mourigal, and S. E. Dutton, Emergent order in the kagome Ising magnet Dy 3Mg2Sb3O14, Nat. Commun. 7, 13842 (2016)

    2016

  28. [35]

    Lefran ˜A§ois, V

    E. Lefran ˜A§ois, V. Cathelin, E. Lhotel, J. Robert, P. Le- jay, C. V. Colin, B. Canals, F. Damay, J. Ollivier, B. F ˜A¥k, L. C. Chapon, R. Ballou, and V. Simonet, Fragmentation in spin ice from magnetic charge injec- tion, Nat. Commun. 8, 209 (2017)

    2017

  29. [36]

    Z. Dun, X. Bai, J. A. M. Paddison, E. Hollingworth, N. P. Butch, C. D. Cruz, M. B. Stone, T. Hong, F. Demmel, M. Mourigal, and H. Zhou, Quantum Ver- sus Classical Spin Fragmentation in Dipolar Kagome Ice Ho3Mg2Sb3O14, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031069 (2020)

    2020

  30. [37]

    In that respect, such a quadrupolar state is not a symmetry-breaking long-range order and it is commonly referred to as the quantum paramagnet

    In the present case, the quadrupolar moment is induced by the on-site term, Dz in Eq.(1), which works as a conjugate field to a quadrupole. In that respect, such a quadrupolar state is not a symmetry-breaking long-range order and it is commonly referred to as the quantum param...

  31. [38]

    Perversi, A

    G. Perversi, A. M. Arevalo-Lopez, C. Ritter, and J. P. Attfield, Frustration wave order in iron(II) oxide spinels, Commun. Phys. 1, 69 (2018)

    2018

  32. [39]

    P. T. Barton, M. C. Kemei, M. W. Gaultois, S. L. Moffitt, L. E. Darago, R. Seshadri, M. R. Suchomel, and B. C. Melot, Structural distortion below the N´ eel temperature in spinel GeCo 2O4, Phys. Rev. B 90, 064105 (2014)

    2014

  33. [40]

    Li and G

    F.-Y. Li and G. Chen, Competing phases and topological excitations of spin-1 pyrochlore antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 98, 045109 (2018)

    2018

  34. [41]

    Penc and A

    K. Penc and A. M. L¨ auchli, Spin Nematic Phases in Quantum Spin Systems, in Introduction to Frustrated Magnetism: Materials, Experiments, Theory, edited by C. Lacroix, P. Mendels, and F. Mila (Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011) pp. 331–362”

    2011

  35. [42]

    Amari, Y

    Y. Amari, Y. Akagi, S. B. Gudnason, M. Nitta, and Y. Shnir, CP 2 skyrmion crystals in an SU(3) magnet with a generalized Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction, Phys. Rev. B 106, L100406 (2022)

    2022

  36. [43]

    Zhang, Z

    H. Zhang, Z. Wang, D. Dahlbom, K. Barros, and C. D. Batista, CP2 skyrmions and skyrmion crystals in realistic quantum magnets, Nat. Commun. 14, 3626 (2023)

    2023

  37. [44]

    Chen and L

    G. Chen and L. Balents, Spin-orbit effects in Na 4Ir3O8: A hyper-kagome lattice antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B 78, 094403 (2008)

    2008

  38. [45]

    Jackeli and G

    G. Jackeli and G. Khaliullin, Mott Insulators in the Strong Spin-Orbit Coupling Limit: From Heisenberg to a Quantum Compass and Kitaev Models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 017205 (2009)

    2009

  39. [46]

    Khaliullin, Excitonic Magnetism in Van Vleck–type d4 Mott Insulators, Phys

    G. Khaliullin, Excitonic Magnetism in Van Vleck–type d4 Mott Insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 197201 (2013)

    2013

  40. [47]

    Liu and G

    H. Liu and G. Khaliullin, Pseudospin exchange interac- tions in d7 cobalt compounds: Possible realization of the Kitaev model, Phys. Rev. B 97, 014407 (2018)

    2018

  41. [48]

    Khaliullin, D

    G. Khaliullin, D. Churchill, P. P. Stavropoulos, and H.- Y. Kee, Exchange interactions, Jahn-Teller coupling, and multipole orders in pseudospin one-half 5 d2 Mott insula- tors, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033163 (2021)

    2021

  42. [49]

    Chen, Quadrupole moments and their interactions in the triangular lattice antiferromagnet FeI 2, Phys

    G. Chen, Quadrupole moments and their interactions in the triangular lattice antiferromagnet FeI 2, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L032042 (2023)

    2023

  43. [50]

    K. A. Ross, L. Savary, B. D. Gaulin, and L. Balents, Quantum Excitations in Quantum Spin Ice, Phys. Rev. X 1, 021002 (2011)

    2011

  44. [51]

    J. G. Rau and M. J. Gingras, Frustrated Quantum Rare- Earth Pyrochlores, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 10, 357–386 (2019)

    2019

  45. [52]

    Y. Li, G. Chen, W. Tong, L. Pi, J. Liu, Z. Yang, X. Wang, and Q. Zhang, Rare-Earth Triangular Lattice Spin Liq- uid: A Single-Crystal Study of YbMgGaO 4, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 167203 (2015)

    2015

  46. [53]

    P. A. Maksimov, Z. Zhu, S. R. White, and A. L. Cherny- shev, Anisotropic-Exchange Magnets on a Triangular Lattice: Spin Waves, Accidental Degeneracies, and Dual Spin Liquids, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021017 (2019)

    2019

  47. [54]

    Songvilay, J

    M. Songvilay, J. Robert, S. Petit, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, W. D. Ratcliff, F. Damay, V. Bal´ edent, M. Jim´ enez-Ruiz, P. Lejay, E. Pachoud, A. Hadj-Azzem, V. Simonet, and C. Stock, Kitaev interactions in the Co honeycomb anti- ferromagnets Na3Co2SbO6 and Na2Co2TeO6, Phys. Rev...

    2020

  48. [55]

    C. Kim, J. Jeong, G. Lin, P. Park, T. Masuda, S. Asai, S. Itoh, H.-S. Kim, H. Zhou, J. Ma, and J.-G. Park, An- tiferromagnetic Kitaev interaction in Jeff = 1/2 cobalt honeycomb materials Na 3Co2SbO6 and Na2Co2TeO6, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 34, 045802 (2022)

    2022

  49. [56]

    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, Geometrical frustration versus Kitaev interactions in BaCo 2(AsO4)2, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 120,...

    2023

  50. [57]

    Bai, S.-S

    X. Bai, S.-S. Zhang, Z. Dun, H. Zhang, Q. Huang, H. Zhou, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, F. Ye, C. D. Batista, and M. Mourigal, Hybridized quadrupolar ex- citations in the spin-anisotropic frustrated magnet FeI 2, Nature Physics 17, 467–472 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    D. I. Khomskii, K. I. Kugel, A. O. Sboychakov, and S. V. Streltsov, Role of local geometry in the spin and orbital structure of transition metal compounds, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 122, 484–498 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    T. M. Dunn, Spin-orbit coupling in the first and second transition series, Trans. Faraday Soc. 57, 1441 (1961)

    1961

  53. [61]

    A. J. Walisinghe and N. F. Chilton, Assessment of min- imal active space CASSCF-SO methods for calculation of atomic Slater-Condon and spin-orbit coupling param- eters in d- and f-block ions, Dalton Trans. 50, 14130– 14138 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    H. Yan, O. Benton, L. Jaubert, and N. Shannon, The- ory of multiple-phase competition in pyrochlore magnets with anisotropic exchange with application to Yb2Ti2O7, Er2Ti2O7, and Er 2Sn2O7, Phys. Rev. B 95, 094422 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    D. M. Gitman and A. L. Shelepin, Coherent states of SU(N) groups, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 26, 313–327 (1993)

    1993

  56. [64]

    Nemoto, Generalized coherent states for SU (n) sys- tems, J

    K. Nemoto, Generalized coherent states for SU (n) sys- tems, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 33, 3493–3506 (2000). 20

    2000

  57. [65]

    S. M. Winter, Y. Li, H. O. Jeschke, and R. Valent ´ ı, Chal- lenges in design of Kitaev materials: Magnetic interac- tions from competing energy scales, Phys. Rev. B 93, 214431 (2016)

    2016

  58. [66]

    J. G. Rau and M. J. P. Gingras, Frustration and anisotropic exchange in ytterbium magnets with edge- shared octahedra, Phys. Rev. B 98, 054408 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    M. E. A. Coury, S. L. Dudarev, W. M. C. Foulkes, A. P. Horsfield, P.-W. Ma, and J. S. Spencer, Hubbard-like Hamiltonians for interacting electrons in s, p, and d or- bitals, Phys. Rev. B 93, 075101 (2016)

    2016

  60. [68]

    Tondello, G

    E. Tondello, G. De Michelis, L. Oleari, and L. Di Sipio, Slater-condon parameters for atoms and ions of the first transition period, Coord. Chem. Rev. 2, 53–63 (1967)

    1967

  61. [69]

    Strobel, F

    P. Strobel, F. P. Koffyberg, and A. Wold, Electrical and optical properties of high-purity p-type single crystals of GeFe2O4, J. Solid State Chem. 31, 209–216 (1980)

    1980

  62. [70]

    J. C. Slater and G. F. Koster, Simplified LCAO Method for the Periodic Potential Problem, Phys. Rev. 94, 1498– 1524 (1954)

    1954

  63. [71]

    Uematsu, H

    D. Uematsu, H. Sagayama, T.-h. Arima, J. J. Ishikawa, S. Nakatsuji, H. Takagi, M. Yoshida, J. Mizuki, and K. Ishii, Large trigonal-field effect on spin-orbit coupled states in a pyrochlore iridate, Phys. Rev. B 92, 094405 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.