Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 55 references

Breakdown of intermediate one-half magnetization plateau of spin-1/2 Ising-Heisenberg and Heisenberg branched chains at triple and Kosterlitz-Thouless critical points

T0 review · 2 major / 7 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 Half-magnetization plateau ends at a triple point or a KT point.

desk verdict Solid exact solution for a new branched Ising-Heisenberg chain, but the Kosterlitz-Thouless claim for the Heisenberg chain rests on thin DMRG evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05639 v1 pith:KXUDMCO7 submitted 2019-08-15 cond-mat.stat-mech

Katarina Karlova , Jozef Strecka , Marcelo Lyra This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mech PACS 75.10.Jm75.30.Kz75.40.Cx03.65.Ud
keywords Ising-HeisenbergmodelHeisenbergbranchedchainmagnetizationplateauKosterlitz-ThoulesscriticalpointtriplequantumspinliquidDMRGsimulations
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 studies two closely related one-dimensional spin-1/2 branched chains—a dimer backbone with an extra spin per unit cell—in a magnetic field. It claims that the intermediate plateau at one-half saturation magnetization disappears through two different mechanisms: in the exactly solved chain whose side spins are classical Ising variables, the plateau terminates at a triple point where three ground states meet; in the fully quantum chain whose side spins are Heisenberg variables, the same plateau terminates at a Kosterlitz-Thouless quantum critical point where a gapped plateau phase meets a gapless spin liquid. The claim identifies the classical or quantum character of the side spins as the controlling factor for how the plateau breaks down. If correct, it predicts that tuning the anisotropy of the side ions in a real coordination polymer can switch between the two breakdown behaviors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object for the exact part is the transfer matrix of the Ising-Heisenberg chain: after tracing out the two Heisenberg spins and the side Ising spin inside each unit cell, the partition function reduces to a $2\times 2$ transfer matrix whose largest eigenvalue gives the free energy, the local and total magnetizations, and the concurrence of the Heisenberg dimers. The load-bearing evidence for the quantum part is the finite-size scaling of the one-half plateau width against $1/N_t$ in the DMRG data; the exponentially slow closure of the spin gap as $J_1/J$ approaches about 4 is read as the Kosterlitz-Thouless signature. The known quantization condition for magnetization plateaus (total spin minus magnetization per unit cell equal to an integer) is what licenses the one-half plateau in the first place.

What would settle it

Run DMRG or a tensor-network calculation for the Heisenberg branched chain with 100 or more unit cells at and just below $J_1/J = 4.0$, and perform a Kosterlitz-Thouless scaling collapse of the spin gap; if the extrapolated one-half plateau width stays positive at $J_1/J = 4.0$ or the gap closes algebraically, the plateau does not vanish at a Kosterlitz-Thouless point as claimed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: for the spin-1/2 Ising-Heisenberg branched chain, the transfer-matrix solution gives three ground states—a modulated quantum antiferromagnet (zero magnetization plateau), a quantum ferrimagnet (one-half plateau), and a classical ferromagnet (saturation)—and the one-half plateau disappears at a triple point at ferromagnetic Ising coupling $J_1/J \approx 0.97$, above which the magnetization jumps directly from the zero plateau to saturation. For the analogous spin-1/2 Heisenberg branched chain, DMRG on chains of 24, 36, and 48 unit cells, extrapolated to the thermodynamic limit, gives zero and one-half plateaus plus a gapless quantum spin-liquid phase; the one-half plateau narrows as the ferromagnetic side coupling grows and vanishes above a Kosterlitz-Thouless quantum critical point near $J_1/J \approx 4.0$, where the plateau phase and the spin liquid coexist. The paper's central contrast is that the same one-half plateau breaks down at a triple point when the side spins are treated as classical Ising variables, but at a Kosterlitz-Thouless quantum critical point when they are treated as quantum Heisenberg variables.

Load-bearing premise

The Kosterlitz-Thouless classification of the Heisenberg chain's plateau breakdown rests on extrapolating the spin gap from DMRG data for only 24, 36, and 48 unit cells, without a quantitative Kosterlitz-Thouless scaling collapse; if that finite-size trend is an artifact, the central contrast collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the Ising-Heisenberg chain with ferromagnetic side coupling above $J_1/J \approx 0.97$, the one-half plateau is absent and the zero-temperature magnetization jumps directly from zero to saturation.
  • For the Heisenberg chain, the one-half plateau survives to $J_1/J \approx 4.0$ and is bordered on both sides by a gapless quantum spin liquid; above that coupling the plateau no longer forms.
  • The magnetic susceptibility should show a dip at the Kosterlitz-Thouless critical point and zero value across the plateau field range, giving a numerical signature that distinguishes this breakdown from a triple point.
  • The critical coupling at which the plateau disappears is much larger in the fully quantum chain (about 4.0) than in the Ising-Heisenberg chain (about 0.97), so quantum side couplings substantially stabilize the plateau.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive test not performed in the paper: perform a quantitative Kosterlitz-Thouless scaling collapse of the spin gap for the Heisenberg chain near $J_1/J = 4$ with much larger systems or tensor-network methods; if the gap closes with a power law instead of exponentially, the Kosterlitz-Thouless assignment would be replaced by a conventional quantum critical point.
  • If the Kosterlitz-Thouless classification holds, interpolating the side-spin anisotropy between the Ising and Heisenberg limits should turn the triple point continuously into the Kosterlitz-Thouless point, so a single material tuned through anisotropic side ions might exhibit both breakdown mechanisms.
  • The exact concurrence results suggest an entanglement diagnostic: near the Ising-Heisenberg triple point the dimer concurrence jumps discontinuously, so simultaneous magnetization and concurrence measurements could identify the triple point in a candidate coordination-polymer material.
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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents an exact transfer-matrix solution of the spin-1/2 Ising-Heisenberg branched chain in a magnetic field and uses DMRG to study the analogous fully quantum Heisenberg branched chain. For the Ising-Heisenberg model the authors derive the ground-state phase boundaries in Eqs. (21)-(23), the zero-temperature magnetization curves, and the dimer concurrence, and they show that the one-half magnetization plateau ends at a triple point near J1/J about 0.97. For the Heisenberg model they find from DMRG that the one-half plateau narrows with increasing ferromagnetic J1/J and claim it terminates at a Kosterlitz-Thouless quantum critical point near J1/J about 4.0, in contrast to the triple-point termination of the Ising-Heisenberg chain.

Significance. If the Kosterlitz-Thouless assignment is correct, the paper reports a genuinely interesting universality contrast: replacing the classical Ising side couplings by quantum Heisenberg couplings changes the breakdown of the one-half magnetization plateau from a triple-point endpoint to a KT critical point. The exact transfer-matrix solution is a self-contained, parameter-free derivation with no fitted constants, and it provides a rigorous benchmark for the plateau phases and their boundaries. The DMRG study also contains no fitted exchange couplings. However, the KT classification of the Heisenberg-chain plateau termination is not yet quantitatively established; it rests on a very small number of system sizes and on analogy with Ref. [28]. The exact Ising-Heisenberg half of the central claim is sound, but the claimed contrast in universality classes depends on strengthening the numerical evidence for the KT assignment.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV, discussion of Fig. 12(b)] The Kosterlitz-Thouless identification of the half-plateau termination for the Heisenberg branched chain rests on DMRG data for only three system sizes (N=24, 36, 48 unit cells, i.e. N_t=96, 144, 192) and is not backed by a quantitative finite-size analysis. Fig. 11(a) plots the plateau width against 1/N_t, and the text states that the gap still persists at J1/J=3.0 and 3.5 and vanishes near J1/J approximately 4.0, but no fitted gap form, no scaling collapse, and no extrapolation or truncation-error estimates are reported. With only three system sizes, a linear 1/N_t extrapolation cannot distinguish an exponentially small but nonzero gap from a power-law closure, and the location of the critical coupling is consequently uncertain. Since the central claim of the paper is the contrast between this KT endpoint and the rigorous Ising-Heisenberg triple point, I request an explicit fit of the spin gap as a function of N_t, additional system sizes, a data collapse of the plateau width or susceptibility, and an estimate of the critical J1/J with uncertainties. The analogy with Ref. [28] can motivate the expectation of KT behavior, but it is not evidence for this model.
  2. [Sec. IV, discussion of Fig. 12(b)] The sentence "the intermediate one-half magnetization plateau of the spin-1/2 Ising-Heisenberg branched chain is suppressed by a quantum spin liquid" is inconsistent with the exact solution presented earlier in the paper. The Ising-Heisenberg branched chain has no gapless quantum spin-liquid phase in Sec. III; its half-plateau terminates at the triple point where the phases |I'>, |II>, and |III> meet. As written, this sentence attributes to the exactly solved model a phase that the paper itself does not find, and it obscures the claimed contrast between the two models. Please correct this statement and make the comparison in Fig. 12(b) refer explicitly to the triple-point endpoint for the Ising-Heisenberg chain and the KT endpoint for the Heisenberg chain.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Keywords] The keyword "Hesienberg" should be spelled "Heisenberg".
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (8)] The eigenvectors |phi_3,i> and |phi_4,i> are both written with the second term c_- |up>_1,i |down>_2,i; the second term in each should evidently involve |down>_1,i |up>_2,i, matching the standard singlet/triplet combination.
  3. [Sec. IV, text near Fig. 10(d)] The phrase "interaction ratio J2/J1" appears to be a typo; the model has only the ratio J1/J, and this should be corrected.
  4. [Sec. V] The triple-point location is reported as "J2/J approximately 0.97", but the parameter J2 is not defined anywhere in the paper; this should be J1/J approximately 0.97.
  5. [Secs. IV and V] The phrase "coexist together" is redundant and should read simply "coexist".
  6. [References] Reference [43] spells the author name as "Wooters"; the correct spelling is "Wootters". Reference [46] is dated 2001 but the ALPS paper appeared in 2011; please correct the year.
  7. [Sec. IV, Figs. 8-10] The smooth curves in Figs. 8-10 are described as extrapolations to the thermodynamic limit, but the extrapolation procedure is not described anywhere in Sec. IV; a sentence stating the extrapolation form and the number of sizes used would be needed for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: exact solution is self-contained; the only self-citation (Ref. 28) is an external analogy, not a definitional input.

full rationale

The exact transfer-matrix solution of the Ising-Heisenberg branched chain (Secs. II–III) is a parameter-free diagonalization of the cell Hamiltonian; the phase boundaries (21)–(23) follow from comparing the energies of the explicitly constructed eigenstates (18)–(20), and the one-half-plateau breakdown at the triple point is read off from the intersection of these exact boundaries. No quantity is fitted to the magnetization or concurrence data, and the concurrence formula (17) is the standard Wootters expression. The DMRG study of the Heisenberg branched chain (Sec. IV) likewise uses no fitted couplings; the plateau width and critical-field estimates are finite-size extrapolations of raw DMRG data. The only self-referential element is the appeal to the authors' own Ref. 28 for the analogous Kosterlitz-Thouless termination in the mixed spin-(1/2,5/2,1/2) branched chain. That citation concerns a different model and does not define or assert the present model's result, so it is corroborative external evidence rather than a definitional input. The finite-size basis for the KT classification (N=24, 36, 48 cells, no quantitative scaling collapse) is a numerical-evidence weakness, not a circularity. No step reduces by construction to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central exact part of the paper uses no fitted numbers; the numerical part relies on standard DMRG parameters rather than fitted constants. The main assumptions are the Ising-spin modeling of Fe3+, equal g-factors, and the KT interpretation of the finite-size gap data.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The transfer-matrix method with periodic boundary conditions yields the exact thermodynamic-limit free energy from the largest eigenvalue.
    Used in Sec. II, Eqs. (4)-(14); a standard result of statistical mechanics.
  • domain assumption Trivalent Fe3+ ions in low-spin state are modeled as classical Ising spins while Cu2+ ions are Heisenberg spins.
    Sec. I states this simplification, citing the magnetic anisotropy of Fe3+; it is the modeling premise that makes the exact solution possible, and its quantitative validity for Fe2Cu2 is not derived.
  • domain assumption Equal Landé g-factors for all ions, so h1 = h2 = h3.
    Sec. III states 'For simplicity' this is assumed when plotting magnetization and concurrence; it is not derived from experiment.
  • ad hoc to paper The exponentially slow closing of the DMRG spin gap at J1/J about 4 identifies a Kosterlitz-Thouless transition.
    Adopted from the analogous finding in Ref. 28; the paper does not perform a quantitative KT fit, so the classification rests on this interpretive premise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Breakdown of intermediate one-half magnetization plateau of spin-1/2 Ising-Heisenberg and Heisenberg branched chains at triple and Kosterlitz-Thouless critical points." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KXUDMCO7

@misc{pith2026190805639,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Breakdown of intermediate one-half magnetization plateau of spin-1/2 Ising-Heisenberg and Heisenberg branched chains at triple and Kosterlitz-Thouless critical points},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KXUDMCO7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05639}
}
read the original abstract

The spin-1/2 Ising-Heisenberg branched chain composed of regularly alternating Ising spins and Heisenberg dimers involving an additional side branching is rigorously solved in a magnetic field by the transfer-matrix approach. The ground-state phase diagram, the magnetization process and the concurrence measuring a degree of bipartite entanglement within the Heisenberg dimers are examined in detail. Three different ground states were found depending on a mutual interplay between the magnetic field and two different coupling constants: the modulated quantum antiferromagnetic phase, the quantum ferrimagnetic phase and the classical ferromagnetic phase. Two former quantum ground states are manifested in zero-temperature magnetization curves as intermediate plateaus at zero and one-half of the saturation magnetization, whereas the one-half plateau disappears at a triple point induced by a strong enough ferromagnetic Ising coupling. The ground-state phase diagram and zero-temperature magnetization curves of the analogous spin-1/2 Heisenberg branched chain were investigated using DMRG calculations. The latter fully quantum Heisenberg model involves, besides two gapful phases manifested as zero and one-half magnetization plateaus, gapless quantum spin-liquid phase. The intermediate one-half plateau of the spin-1/2 Heisenberg branched chain vanishes at Kosterlitz-Thouless quantum critical point between gapful and gapless quantum ground states unlike the triple point of the spin-1/2 Ising-Heisenberg branched chain.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05639 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: A part of the crystal structure of the heterobimetali [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: A schematic illustration of the spin-1/2 Ising-Heis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (a) The ground-state phase diagram of the spin-1/2 Is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: A schematic illustration of spin arrangments within [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) The concurrence as a function of the magnetic field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (a) The concurrence as a function of the magnetic field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (a) The concurrence as a function of the magnetic field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The magnetic-field dependence of the total magnetiza [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The magnetic-field dependence of the local and total m [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The magnetic-field dependence of the local and total [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: (a) A width of the intermediate one-half plateau ver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: (a) The ground-state phase diagram of the spin-1/2 H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Ver\'issimo, M.S.S

    L.M. Ver\'issimo, M.S.S. Pereira, J. Stre c ka, M.L. Lyra, Phys. Rev. B 99 , 134408 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Kuramoto, J

    T. Kuramoto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 67 , 1762 (1998)

    work page 1998

  3. [2]

    Yamanoto, T

    S. Yamanoto, T. Sakai, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 11 , 5175 (1999)

    work page 1999

  4. [3]

    Sakai, S

    T. Sakai, S. Yamanoto, Phys. Rev. B 60 , 4053 (1999)

    work page 1999

  5. [4]

    N. B. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. B 62 , 3217 (2000)

    work page 2000

  6. [5]

    Honecker, F

    A. Honecker, F. Mila, M. Troyer, Eur. Phys. J. B. 15 , 227 (2000)

    work page 2000

  7. [6]

    Yamamoto, T

    S. Yamamoto, T. Sakai, Phys. Rev. B 62 , 3795 (2000)

    work page 2000

  8. [7]

    Sakai, S

    T. Sakai, S. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. B 65 , 214403 (2002)

    work page 2002

Show all 55 references
  1. [8]

    Ten\'orio, R.R

    A.S.F. Ten\'orio, R.R. Montenegro-Filho, M.D. Coutinho-Filho, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 23 , 506003 (2011)

    2011

  2. [9]

    Kar l ov\'a, J

    K. Kar l ov\'a, J. Stre c ka, Physica B 536 , 494 (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    J. S. Miller, M. Drillon, Magnetism: Molecules to Materials, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2001

    2001

  4. [11]

    Hagiwara, K

    M. Hagiwara, K. Minami, Y. Narumi, K. Tatani, K. Kindo, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 67 , 2209 (1998)

    1998

  5. [12]

    Kopinga, A.M.C

    K. Kopinga, A.M.C. Tinus, W.J.M. de Jonge, Phys. Rev. B 25 , 4685 (1982)

    1982

  6. [13]

    Kamienriarz, R

    G. Kamienriarz, R. Matysiak, P. Gegenwart, H. Aoki, A. Ochiai, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 290-291 , 353 (2005)

    2005

  7. [14]

    K\"uhne, H.-H

    H. K\"uhne, H.-H. Klauss, S. Grossjohann, W. Brenig, F.J. Litterst, A.P. Reyes, P.L. Kuhns, M.M. Turnbull, C.P. Landee, Phys. Rev. B 80 , 045110 (2009)

    2009

  8. [15]

    Jeong, H.M

    M. Jeong, H.M. R nnow, Phys. Rev. B 92 , 180409(R) (2015)

    2015

  9. [16]

    Chakraborty, H

    T. Chakraborty, H. Singh, D. Chaudhuri, H. Jeevan, P. Gegenwart, Ch. Mitra, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 439 , 101 (2017)

    2017

  10. [17]

    Maeshima, M

    N. Maeshima, M. Hagiwara, Y. Narumi, K. Kindo, T.C. Kobayashi, K. Okunishi, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 15 , 3607 (2003)

    2003

  11. [18]

    Maruyama, S

    I. Maruyama, S. Miyahara, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 87 , 123703 (2018)

    2018

  12. [19]

    Morita, T

    K. Morita, T. Sugimoto, S. Sotu, T. Tohyama, Phys. Rev. B 97 , 014412 (2018)

    2018

  13. [20]

    L.S. Wu, S.E. Nikitin, Z. Wang, W. Zhu, C.D. Batista, A.M. Tsvelik, A.M. Samarakoon, D.A. Tennant, M. Brando, L. Vasylechko, M. Frontzek, A.T. Savici, G. Sala, G. Ehlers, A.D. Christianson, M.D. Lumotsen, A. Podlesnyak, Nature Communications 10 , 698 (2019)

    2019

  14. [21]

    Avalishvili, G.I

    N. Avalishvili, G.I. Japaridze, G.L. Rossini, Phys. Rev. B 99 , 205159 (2019)

    2019

  15. [22]

    da Silva, R.R

    W.M. da Silva, R.R. Montenegro-Filho, Phys. Rev. B 96 , 214419 (2017)

    2017

  16. [23]

    Bellucci, V

    S. Bellucci, V. Ohanyan, O. Rojas, Eur. Phys. Lett. 105 , 47012 (2014)

    2014

  17. [24]

    Ohanyan, O

    V. Ohanyan, O. Rojas, J. Stre c ka, S. Bellucci, Phys. Rev. B 92 , 214423 (2015)

    2015

  18. [25]

    Oshikawa, M

    M. Oshikawa, M. Yamanaka, I. Affleck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 , 1984 (1997)

    1997

  19. [26]

    Kar l ov\'a, J

    K. Kar l ov\'a, J. Stre c ka, T. Verkholyak, preprint arxiv: 1904.02889

    1904 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Ejima, T

    S. Ejima, T. Yagamuchi, F.H.L. Essler, F. Lange, Y. Ohta, H. Feshke, SciPost. Phys. 5 , 059 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Liu, L.-J

    G.-H. Liu, L.-J. Kong, J.-Y. Dou, Solid State Commun. 213-214 , 10 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    L.-C. Kang, X. Chen, H.-S. Wang, Y.-Z. Li, Y. Song, J.-L. Zuo, X.-Z. You, Inorg. Chem. 49 , 9275 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    de Jongh, A.R

    L.J. de Jongh, A.R. Miedema, Adv. Phys. 23 , 1 (1974)

    1974

  24. [32]

    Carlin, Magnetochemistry, Springer, Berlin, 1986

    R.L. Carlin, Magnetochemistry, Springer, Berlin, 1986

    1986

  25. [33]

    Kahn, Molecular Magnetism, New York 1993

    O. Kahn, Molecular Magnetism, New York 1993

    1993

  26. [34]

    Wolf, Braz

    W.P. Wolf, Braz. J. Phys. 30 794 (2000)

    2000

  27. [35]

    G\'alisov\'a, D

    L. G\'alisov\'a, D. Kne z o, Phys. Lett. A 382 , 2839 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Stre c ka, M

    J. Stre c ka, M. Ja s c ur, M. Hagiwara, K. Minami, Y. Narumi, K. Kindo, Phys. Rev. B 72 , 024459 (2005)

    2005

  29. [37]

    Van den Heuvel, L.F

    W. Van den Heuvel, L.F. Chibotaru, Phys. Rev. B 82 , 174436 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    Sahoo, J.-P

    S. Sahoo, J.-P. Sutter, S. Ramasesha, J. Stat. Phys. 147 , 181 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Stre c ka, M

    J. Stre c ka, M. Hagiwara, Y. Han, T. Kida, Z. Honda, M. Ikeda, Condens. Matter Phys. 15 , 43002 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    Souza, M.L

    F. Souza, M.L. Lyra, J. Stre c ka, M.S.S. Pererira, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 471 , 423 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Torrico, J

    J. Torrico, J. Stre c ka, M. Hagiwara, O. Rojas, S.M. de Souza, Y. Han, Z. Honda, M.L. Lyra, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 460 , 368 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Torrico, M.L

    J. Torrico, M.L. Lyra, O. Rojas, S.M. de Souza, J. Stre c ka, Acta Physica Polonica A 131 , 621 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Lisnyi, J

    B. Lisnyi, J. Stre c ka, Physica A: Stat. Mech. Appl. 462 , 104 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Verkholyak, J

    T. Verkholyak, J. Stre c ka, Phys. Rev. B 94 , 144410 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Abgaryan, N.S

    V.S. Abgaryan, N.S. Ananikian, L.N. Ananikyan, V. Hovhannisyan, Solid. State. Commun. 203 , 5 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    Ananikian, J

    N.S. Ananikian, J. Str c ka, V. Hovhannisyan, Solid State Commun. 194 , 48 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Rojas, J

    O. Rojas, J. Stre c ka, M.L. Lyra, Phys. Lett. A 377 , 920 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    Ohanyan, A

    V. Ohanyan, A. Honecker, Phys. Rev. B 86 , 054412 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    Ohanyan, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 73 , 494 (2010)

    V. Ohanyan, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 73 , 494 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    Valverde, O

    J.S. Valverde, O. Rojas, S.M. de Souza, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 20 , 345208 (2008)

    2008

  43. [51]

    H. A. Kramers, G. H. Wannier, Phys. Rev. 60 , (1941) 252

    1941

  44. [52]

    W. K. Wooters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 , 2245 (1998)

    1998

  45. [53]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80 , 517 (2008)

    2008

  46. [54]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81 , 865 (2009)

    2009

  47. [55]

    Bauer, L

    B. Bauer, L. D. Carr, H.G. Evertz, A. Feiguin, J. Freire, S. Fuchs, L. Gamper, J. Gukelberger, E. Gull, S. Guertler et al., J. Stat. Mech. (2001) P05001

    2001

Pith tools

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