Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 68 references

Effects of magnetic anisotropy on spin and thermal transports in classical antiferromagnets on the square lattice

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 In a classical square-lattice antiferromagnet with XY anisotropy, the spin-current conductivity diverges at the Kosterlitz-Thouless temperature as $\exp[B/\sqrt{T/T_{KT}-1}]$, while thermal conductivity shows no anomaly.

desk verdict A solid numerical study with a compelling qualitative claim—spin transport sees the KT transition, thermal transport doesn't—but the headline exponential divergence is less nailed down than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06630 v1 pith:R6TMAQJZ submitted 2019-08-19 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mech

Kazushi Aoyama , Hikaru Kawamura This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords classicalXXZmodelsquare-latticeantiferromagnetspin-currentconductivitythermalKosterlitz-Thoulesstransitionvortexunbindingmagneticanisotropyspindynamicssimulation
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 asks whether a magnetic phase transition leaves a measurable fingerprint in spin and heat transport in a two-dimensional antiferromagnet. Using the classical XXZ model on the square lattice, it argues that the thermal conductivity is blind to the ordering transition, while the longitudinal spin-current conductivity $\sigma^s_{xx}$ carries a sharp, universality-class-dependent signal. For XY-type anisotropy ($\Delta<1$), $\sigma^s_{xx}$ diverges at the Kosterlitz-Thouless temperature as $\sigma^s_{xx}\propto\exp[B/\sqrt{T/T_{KT}-1}]$ with $B=\mathcal{O}(1)$; for Ising anisotropy there is no anomaly at $T_N$, and for the Heisenberg case the conductivity grows exponentially toward zero temperature. The divergence is traced to the spin-current relaxation time growing as free vortices become long-lived near $T_{KT}$. If the claim is right, spin transport—not heat transport—is the practical probe of topological vortex unbinding in these magnets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the time-dependent spin-current correlation function $\langle J^z_s(0)J^z_s(t)\rangle$, computed from the semiclassical equation of motion $d\mathbf{S}_i/dt=\mathbf{S}_i\times\mathbf{H}^{\rm eff}_i$, whose zero-frequency integral defines $\sigma^s_{xx}$ through the Green-Kubo formula. The paper factorizes the conductivity as $\sigma^s_{xx}\simeq T^{-1}\langle|j^z_{s,x}(0)|^2\rangle\tau_s$, where the equal-time fluctuation term is mild but the spin-current relaxation time $\tau_s$ diverges toward $T_{KT}$ in the XY case, fitted as $\tau_s\propto\exp[\tilde{B}/\sqrt{T/T_{KT}-1}]$ with $\tilde{B}\simeq 2.6$. This divergence is attributed to the growing lifetime of diffusing free vortices, which must travel farther to find an antivortex partner as the inter-vortex distance grows. The same machinery makes the effect specific to the XY case: in Ising and Heisenberg magnets, $\tau_s$ is controlled by ordinary magnon damping or by the spin correlation length, not by vortex unbinding.

What would settle it

A decisive numerical test would extend the spin-dynamics integration beyond $t=800\,|J|^{-1}$ on the largest lattices used here, or repeat the calculation with a small Gilbert damping added: if the time-integrated spin-current correlation saturates to a finite value as $T_{KT}$ is approached, or if the fitted exponent $B$ shifts beyond its quoted uncertainty, the claimed exponential divergence is a finite-window artifact rather than an intrinsic property of the XXZ model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the conserved magnetization current in the classical antiferromagnetic XXZ model on the square lattice distinguishes the three universality classes, while the energy current does not. In the XY case ($\Delta<1$), the longitudinal spin-current conductivity $\sigma^s_{xx}=\sigma^s_{yy}$ diverges as $T$ approaches $T_{KT}$ from above, following $\sigma^s_{xx}\propto\exp[B/\sqrt{T/T_{KT}-1}]$ with fitted $B\simeq 2.3$, comparable to the KT correlation-length coefficient $b_{KT}\simeq\pi/2$. Below $T_{KT}$, $\sigma^s_{xx}$ drops to a vanishingly small value, in line with the absence of a leading-order magnon spin current when the easy-plane order is perpendicular to the conserved spin component. In the Ising case ($\Delta>1$), $\sigma^s_{xx}$ rises monotonically toward low temperature with no clear anomaly at $T_N$, and in the Heisenberg case ($\Delta=1$) it grows approximately as $\exp[b_H|J|/T]$, following the exponentially growing spin correlation length. The thermal conductivity, by contrast, shows a common power-law increase toward $T=0$ in all three cases.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the undamped spin-dynamics equation, started from Monte Carlo thermalized configurations, relaxes the spin current completely within integration windows of 100–800 inverse exchange couplings, and that finite-size extrapolation then yields the thermodynamic-limit conductivity; if longer-lived current tails or lattice-induced damping are needed, the exponential divergence at $T_{KT}$ could be an artifact of the simulation protocol rather than a property of the spin Hamiltonian.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the XY-anisotropic square-lattice antiferromagnet, $\sigma^s_{xx}$ should show a sharp, exponentially divergent peak just above $T_{KT}$ while the thermal conductivity remains featureless, so spin transport is the discriminating probe of the KT transition.
  • Below $T_{KT}$, $\sigma^s_{xx}$ drops to a near-zero value because the leading magnon contribution to the conserved spin current vanishes when the easy-plane order is perpendicular to the spin-current polarization; the same suppression holds for antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic XY models.
  • In the Ising-anisotropy case, no transport anomaly marks $T_N$; $\sigma^s_{xx}$ grows roughly as $T^{-1}$ toward low temperature, controlled by magnon damping.
  • In the Heisenberg case, $\sigma^s_{xx}$ grows as $\exp(b_H|J|/T)$ toward $T=0$, mirroring the exponential spin-correlation length and the absence of finite-temperature order.
  • The contrast between spin and thermal currents is a general lesson: conserved magnetization currents can be sensitive to topological excitations that carry no obvious energy anomaly, so spin-conductivity measurements can detect vortex unbinding where heat transport cannot.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Since the divergence lives in $\tau_s$, the frequency-dependent (ac) spin conductivity should develop a narrow low-frequency peak that sharpens as $T_{KT}$ is approached; measuring it would give a direct experimental window on vortex lifetimes.
  • In real quasi-two-dimensional XY magnets with weak interlayer coupling, the true divergence at $T_{KT}$ will be rounded by three-dimensional ordering, so the paper's mechanism predicts a crossover enhancement of $\sigma^s_{xx}$ just above the ordering temperature rather than a true singularity.
  • The same vortex-lifetime logic applies to frustrated Heisenberg magnets with $Z_2$ vortices, where a spin-conductivity enhancement at the vortex-unbinding temperature $T_v$ should appear even though the correlation length stays finite—an extension the paper leaves open.
  • If the factorization $\sigma^s_{xx}\simeq T^{-1}\langle|j^z_s|^2\rangle\tau_s$ is exact enough, comparing the peak height with the equal-time current fluctuation would extract $\tau_s$ directly, turning a transport measurement into a measurement of topological-defect lifetime.
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 studies spin and thermal transport in the classical square-lattice antiferromagnetic XXZ model using hybrid Monte Carlo and spin-dynamics simulations, supplemented by linear spin-wave theory. For Ising-type (\Delta>1), XY-type (\Delta<1), and Heisenberg-type (\Delta=1) anisotropies, the authors compute the thermal conductivity \kappa and the spin-current conductivity \sigma^s from time-dependent current correlations. They find that \kappa shows no clear anomaly at the magnetic or KT transitions and follows a roughly power-law low-temperature increase, while \sigma^s distinguishes the three universality classes. The central claim is that in the XY case \sigma^s_{xx} diverges at T_\mathrm{KT} as \exp[B/\sqrt{T/T_\mathrm{KT}-1}] with B=2.26\pm0.10, and that this divergence is caused by an exponentially growing spin-current relaxation time associated with vortex lifetimes.

Significance. If the central claim is substantiated, the result is significant: it identifies the longitudinal spin conductivity as a sharp transport signature of the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition, in contrast to thermal transport, and it connects the divergence to vortex dynamics. The paper is careful in using undamped spin dynamics without phenomenological damping, and the linear spin-wave results provide useful low-temperature cross-checks for both the equal-time correlations and the conductivity. The prediction is falsifiable by further simulation and, in principle, by experiments on quasi-two-dimensional XY magnets. The main limitation is that the exponential-divergence claim rests on finite-time integration and finite-size extrapolation in the critical region, so the numerical evidence needs additional controlled convergence tests before the claim can be accepted as quantitative.

major comments (3)
  1. [§V.B, Fig. 11(b)] The fit in Fig. 11(b) yields B=2.26±0.10, whereas the KT correlation-length exponent quoted in the same paragraph is b_\mathrm{KT}\simeq\pi/2\simeq1.57. The difference is about 7σ, so the statement that the obtained B is 'comparable to b_\mathrm{KT}' is not supported by the reported errors. This comparison is load-bearing because the manuscript uses it to connect the conductivity divergence to the KT universality class. The claim should either be softened or accompanied by a quantitative explanation of why the fitted B differs from b_\mathrm{KT} by this factor, supported by additional analysis.
  2. [§II.C and Fig. 6(b)] The conductivity in Eq. (11) is an infinite-time integral of the spin-current autocorrelation, but the numerical integration is truncated at t=800|J|^{-1}. In the XY case at T/|J|=0.66, slightly above T_\mathrm{KT}, the manuscript itself reports that the correlation 'persists for a long time' and shows 'a large system size dependence' (Fig. 6(b)). No convergence test is shown establishing that the integrated correlation has reached a plateau before the cutoff. If slow, size-dependent tails exist beyond t=800, the finite-time integral systematically underestimates the thermodynamic conductivity, and the L→∞ extrapolation of a truncated integral could produce an apparent essential singularity even if the true conductivity is regular. Please provide, for the largest sizes and temperatures used in the exponential fit, plots of the running time integral of ⟨j^z_{s,x}(0)j^z_{s,x}(t)⟩ as a function of the upper cutoff, or an equivalent demonstration that the integral has converged.
  3. [§V.B, Fig. 11(a)] The finite-size extrapolation in Fig. 11(a) is performed at temperatures where the KT correlation length greatly exceeds the simulated sizes. For example, at T/|J|=0.62 one has T/T_\mathrm{KT}\simeq1.03 and ξ_s/a\sim\exp[(\pi/2)/\sqrt{T/T_\mathrm{KT}-1}]\sim10^3–10^4, while the largest simulated linear size is L=384. In this regime the assumption that σ^s_{xx}(L) can be extrapolated to L→∞ without explicitly accounting for ξ_s\sim L is uncontrolled. A finite-size scaling analysis, for instance plotting σ^s_{xx} as a function of L/ξ_s or performing fits that include the ξ_s dependence, is needed to substantiate the thermodynamic-limit divergence and the fitted exponent B.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 7 caption / §V] The text and caption label both panel (a) and panel (b) as Δ=1.05; panel (b) should correspond to the XY-type case Δ=0.95.
  2. [§V.B] The sentence describing the determination of τ_s refers to 'Fig. 8 (b)', but the spin-current time-correlation function for the XY case is shown in Fig. 6(b); Fig. 8 shows a different quantity.
  3. [§V.B] The expression '2b_XT\simeq\pi' contains a typographical error: it should read '2b_\mathrm{KT}\simeq\pi'.
  4. [§V.C] The sentence 'neither a magnetic transition nor a topological one does not occur' contains a double negative; it should read 'neither a magnetic transition nor a topological one occurs'.
  5. [§II.B, Eq. (11)] The notation for the conductivity components would be clearer if the manuscript explicitly stated, near Eq. (11), that σ^s_{xx}=σ^s_{yy} by square-lattice symmetry and that the off-diagonal components vanish within the reported precision, as is later shown for κ and σ^s.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the XY spin-conductivity divergence is extracted from a direct Kubo integral, not constructed from a fitted parameter or a self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, the exponential divergence of sigma^s_xx at T_KT, is obtained by direct numerical evaluation of the Kubo formula in Eq. (11), i.e., the time integral of the spin-current autocorrelation computed from the undamped spin dynamics of Eq. (2). No fitted parameter is inserted into Eq. (11) to force the divergence; the exponential form is only used afterward to characterize the numerically extrapolated thermodynamic-limit data. The parameters T_KT and b_KT are taken from external references [34-37], not from the present authors' prior work. The separate exponential fit to the spin-current relaxation time tau_s is a decomposition of the same autocorrelation into an amplitude and a relaxation time, so the near-agreement between B and Btilde is a consistency check of the exponential-decay form rather than an independent prediction; this is a mild interpretive point, not a circular derivation. The vortex-lifetime explanation is qualitative and additional: the paper does not define sigma in terms of a fitted vortex lifetime or import a uniqueness theorem. Self-citations present in the paper are not load-bearing: [25] is a numerical integrator reference and [63-65] appear only in the outlook on Z2 vortices. Numerical caveats that the paper itself reports, such as the long-lived and size-dependent spin-current autocorrelation just above T_KT (Sec. V.B) and the admitted insufficiency of L=384 in the Heisenberg case (Sec. V.C), are convergence and correctness concerns, not circularity: they concern whether the finite-time and finite-size extrapolation is reliable, not whether the claimed result is equivalent to its inputs. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the Hamiltonian and standard linear-response formulas, and no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main quantitative claims add about ten fitted amplitudes, exponents, and transition-temperature estimates, plus an imported α ∝ T² law and standard correlation-length forms. No new particles, forces, or conservation laws are introduced; magnons and vortices are standard excitations. The LSWT analysis imports α ∝ T² and the ξs formulas from prior literature rather than deriving them.

free parameters (10)
  • KT σ divergence amplitude A = 0.008 ± 0.002
    Fit to L→∞ extrapolated σxx above TKT using A exp[B/√(T/TKT−1)], Fig. 11(b).
  • KT σ divergence exponent B = 2.26 ± 0.10
    Fit to L→∞ extrapolated σxx above TKT; central claimed divergence exponent.
  • KT τ divergence amplitude à = 0.013 ± 0.003
    Fit to τs above TKT using à exp[B̃/√(T/TKT−1)], Fig. 12(b).
  • KT τ divergence exponent B̃ = 2.58 ± 0.07
    Fit to τs above TKT; used to argue that the σ divergence originates in τs.
  • Heisenberg σ amplitude A_H = 0.0017 ± 0.0003
    Fit to L→∞ σxx in the Heisenberg case using A_H exp[B_H |J|/T], Fig. 13(b).
  • Heisenberg σ exponent B_H = 5.1 ± 0.1
    Fit to L→∞ σxx in the Heisenberg case; compared with b_H ≈ 2π.
  • Heisenberg τ amplitude Ã_H = 0.0006 ± 0.0002
    Fit to τs in the Heisenberg case, Fig. 14(b).
  • Heisenberg τ exponent B̃_H = 5.8 ± 0.2
    Fit to τs in the Heisenberg case; compared with b_H ≈ 2π.
  • Low-T power exponent x for τth and τs = ≈ −2.5
    Obtained by fitting low-temperature data with T^x in Secs. IV and V.A; used to discuss deviations from the LSWT T^{-2} law.
  • Transition temperatures T_N and T_KT = T_N/|J| ≈ 0.75 (Δ=1.05); T_KT/|J| ≈ 0.6 (Δ=0.95)
    Estimated from MC simulations and cited references; used to define reduced temperatures in the divergence fits.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math The classical limit of the Kubo linear response formula reduces to L_{a,b}(0) = (1/T) ∫ dt ⟨j_a(0) j_b(t)⟩ (Eq. 10).
    Used in Eq. (11) to express σ and κ as time integrals of current autocorrelations; standard ħ→0 procedure.
  • domain assumption Spin dynamics without phenomenological damping, Eq. (2), captures all intrinsic relaxation relevant to transport.
    Section II.A justifies dropping LLG damping; if extrinsic damping dominates in real materials, computed conductivities may not match experiments.
  • domain assumption Magnon damping α is purely magnetic in origin and approximately α ∝ T² in all three anisotropy regimes, as in Refs. [27,32].
    Used in LSWT results Eqs. (36) and (40) for low-T power laws; not calculated in this paper for the XY and Ising cases.
  • standard math Heisenberg spin correlation length grows as ξs/a ∼ exp[b_H |J|/T] with b_H ≈ 2π.
    Used for the low-T Heisenberg LSWT cutoff and to identify the exponential growth of σxx with ξs.
  • standard math KT correlation length diverges as ξs/a ∼ exp[b_KT/√(T/T_KT−1)] with b_KT ≈ π/2.
    Reference form used to fit and interpret the σxx and τs divergences in Sec. V.B.
  • domain assumption Free vortices above T_KT diffuse, so the vortex lifetime scales as τ_vtx ∝ ξs².
    Cited from Refs. [58-62]; not derived or directly measured, underpins the vortex-lifetime interpretation.
  • standard math The magnon Hamiltonian can be diagonalized by Holstein-Primakoff and Bogoliubov transformations.
    Standard spin-wave theory used in Sec. III; assumes small fluctuations about the ordered state.
  • domain assumption Monte Carlo snapshots form a thermal equilibrium ensemble for initial conditions of deterministic spin dynamics.
    Hybrid MC plus spin dynamics in Sec. II.C; assumes ergodicity and adequate thermalization (10^5 sweeps).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effects of magnetic anisotropy on spin and thermal transports in classical antiferromagnets on the square lattice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R6TMAQJZ

@misc{pith2026190806630,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effects of magnetic anisotropy on spin and thermal transports in classical antiferromagnets on the square lattice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R6TMAQJZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06630}
}
abstract

Transport properties of the classical antiferromagnetic XXZ model on the square lattice have been theoretically investigated, putting emphasis on how the occurrence of a phase transition is reflected in spin and thermal transports. As is well known, the anisotropy of the exchange interaction $\Delta\equiv J_z/J_x$ plays a role to control the universality class of the transition of the model, i.e., either a second-order transition at $T_N$ into a magnetically ordered state or the Kosterlitz-Thouless (KT) transition at $T_{KT}$, which respectively occur for the Ising-type ($\Delta >1$) and $XY$-type ($\Delta <1$) anisotropies, while for the isotropic Heisenberg case of $\Delta=1$, a phase transition does not occur at any finite temperature. It is found by means of the hybrid Monte-Carlo and spin-dynamics simulations that the spin current probes the difference in the ordering properties, while the thermal current does not. For the $XY$-type anisotropy, the longitudinal spin-current conductivity $\sigma^s_{xx}$ ($=\sigma^s_{yy}$) exhibits a divergence at $T_{KT}$ of the exponential form, $\sigma^s_{xx} \propto \exp\big[ B/\sqrt{T/T_{KT}-1 }\, \big]$ with $B={\cal O}(1)$, while for the Ising-type anisotropy, the temperature dependence of $\sigma^s_{xx}$ is almost monotonic without showing a clear anomaly at $T_{N}$ and such a monotonic behavior is also the case in the Heisenberg-type spin system. The significant enhancement of $\sigma^s_{xx}$ at $T_{KT}$ is found to be due to the exponential rapid growth of the spin-current-relaxation time toward $T_{KT}$, which can be understood as a manifestation of the topological nature of a vortex whose lifetime is expected to get longer toward $T_{KT}$. Possible experimental platforms for the spin-transport phenomena associated with the KT topological transition are discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06630 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: System setups for the measurements of (a) thermal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The time correlation function of the thermal cur [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The temperature dependence of the thermal conductiv [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The log-log plot of the longitudinal thermal conduc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The log-log plots of the temperature dependences [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The time correlation function of the spin current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The temperature dependence of the spin-current cond [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The temperature dependences of the equal-time spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The temperature dependence of the longitudi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: The temperature dependences of the equal-time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: The temperature dependences of the equal-time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: The temperature dependences of the specific heat (up [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    95), and (c) Heisenberg-type (∆ =

    05), (b) XY -type (∆ = 0 . 95), and (c) Heisenberg-type (∆ =

    work page

  2. [2]

    τth and ⟨|jth,x (0)|2⟩ are measured in units of |J|− 1 and |J|4, respectively

    spin systems. τth and ⟨|jth,x (0)|2⟩ are measured in units of |J|− 1 and |J|4, respectively. In the left panels, ⟨|jth,x (0)|2⟩ is multiplied by 100 such that the scale of the vertical axis be the same as that in the right panels. In the left panels, a dashed curve represents a power function of T obtained by fitting the low-temperature data in each case, ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    75. Correspondingly, mz AF starts growing up at TN and ξz s /L for different system sizes cross one another at TN , which is usually the case for ordinary continuous mag- netic phase transitions. In the XY case of ∆ = 0 . 95, the KT transition temper- ature is estimated to be TKT / |J| ≃ 0. 6 in Refs. [34–36]. Actually, as one can see from Fig. 15 (b), ξxy...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Frangou, S

    L. Frangou, S. Oyarzun, S. Auffret, L. Vila, S. Gam- barelli, and V. Baltz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 077203 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Z. Qiu, J. Li, D. Hou, E. Arenholz, A. T. N’Diaye, A. Tan, K. Uchida, K. Sato, S. Okamoto, Y. Tserkovnyak, Z. Q. Qiu, and E. Saitoh, nat. commun. 7, 12670 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    H. Wang, D. Hou, Z. Qiu, T. Kikkawa, E. Saitoh, and X. Jin, J. Appl. Phys. 122, 083907 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Frangou, G

    L. Frangou, G. Forestier, S. Auffret, S. Gambarelli, and V. Baltz, Phys. Rev. B 95, 054416 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Gladii, L

    O. Gladii, L. Frangou, G. Forestier, R. L. Seeger, S. Auf- fret, I. Joumard, M. Rubio-Roy, S. Gambarelli, and V. Baltz, Phys. Rev. B 98, 094422 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Ou, D. C. Ralph, and R. A. Buhrman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 097203 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 6, 1181 (1973)

    1973

  3. [11]

    D. L. Huber, Phys. Rev. B 26, 3758 (1982)

    1982

  4. [12]

    F. G. Mertens, A. R. Bishop, G. M. Wysin, and C. Kawa- bata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 117 (1987);Phys. Rev. B 39, 591 (1989)

    1987

  5. [13]

    M. E. Gouvea, G. M. Wysin, A. R. Bishop, and F. G. Mertens, Phys. Rev. B 39, 11840 (1989)

    1989

  6. [14]

    H. G. Evertz and D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev. B 54, 12302 (1996)

    1996

  7. [15]

    Landau and E

    L. Landau and E. Lifshitz, Phys. Z. Sowietunion 8, 153 (1935)

    1935

  8. [16]

    N. A. Lurie, D. L. Huber, and M. Blume, Phys. Rev. B 9, 2171 (1974)

    1974

  9. [17]

    Jencic and P

    B. Jencic and P. Prelovsek, Phys. Rev. B 92, 134305 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    A. Mook, J. Henk, and I. Mertig, Phys. Rev. B 94, 174444 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    A. Mook, B. Gobel, J. Henk, and I. Mertig, Phys. Rev. B 95, 020401(R) (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    D. L. Huber, Prog. Theor. Phys. 39, 1170 (1968)

    1968

  13. [21]

    A. V. Savin, G. P. Tsironis, and X. Zotos, Phys. Rev. B 72, 140402(R) (2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    Sentef, M

    M. Sentef, M. Kollar, and A. P. Kampf, Phys. Rev. B 75, 214403 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    A. S. T. Pires and L. S. Lima, Phys. Rev. B 79, 064401 (2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    Z. Chen, T. Datta, and D. Yao, Eur. Phys. J. B 86, 63 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    G. D. Mahan, Many-Particle Physics , third edition (Springer Science+Business Media, New York, 2000)

    2000

  18. [26]

    R. Kubo, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 12, 570 (1957)

    1957

  19. [27]

    Krech, A

    M. Krech, A. Bunker, and D.P. Landau, Comput. Phys. Commun. 111, 1-13 (1998)

    1998

  20. [28]

    Okubo and H

    T. Okubo and H. Kawamura, J. Soc. Phys. Jpn. 79, 084706 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    S. C. Furuya, M. Oshikawa, and I. Affleck, Phys. Rev. B 83, 224417 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Tyc and B

    S. Tyc and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B 42, 2096 (1990)

    1990

  23. [31]

    A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 59, 79 (1975)

    1975

  24. [32]

    A. A. Abrikosov, L. P. Gorkov, and I. E. Dzyaloshinski, Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics , (Dover Publications, New York, 1963)

    1963

  25. [33]

    Yamaguchi and H

    T. Yamaguchi and H. Kohno, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 86, 063706 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Tatara, Phys

    G. Tatara, Phys. Rev. B 92, 064405 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    A. B. Harris, D. Kumar, B. I. Halperin, and P. C. Ho- henberg, Phys. Rev. B 3, 961 (1971)

    1971

  28. [36]

    Jiang, P

    W. Jiang, P. Upadhyaya, Y. Fan, J. Zhao, M. Wang, L. T. Chang, M. Lang, K. L. Wong, M. Lewis, Y. T. Lin, J. Tang, S. Cherepov, X. Zhou, Y. Tserkovnyak, R. N. Schwartz, and K. L. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 177202 (2013), supplementary information

    2013

  29. [37]

    Cuccoli, V

    A. Cuccoli, V. Tognetti, and R. Vaia, Phys. Rev. B 52, 10221 (1995)

    1995

  30. [38]

    K. W. Lee, C. E. Lee, I.-M. Kim, Solid State Commun. 135, 95 (2005)

    2005

  31. [39]

    A. S. T. Pires, Phys. Rev. B 54, 6081 (1996); Solid State Commun. 100, 791 (1996)

    1996

  32. [40]

    J. M. Kosterlitz, J. Phys. C 7, 1046 (1974)

    1974

  33. [41]

    Hirakawa and K

    K. Hirakawa and K. Ubukoshi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 50, 1909 (1981)

    1981

  34. [42]

    Hirakawa, H

    K. Hirakawa, H. Yoshizawa, and K. Ubukoshi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 51, 2151 (1982)

    1982

  35. [43]

    Hirakawa, J

    K. Hirakawa, J. Appl. Phys. 53, 1893 (1983)

    1983

  36. [44]

    Sachs, T

    B. Sachs, T. O. Wehling, K. S. Novoselov, A. I. Lichten- stein, and M. I. Katsnelson, Phys. Rev. B 88, 201402(R) (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    L. P. Regnault, J. Y. Henry, J. Rossat-Mignod, and A. De Combarieu, J. Mag. Mag. Mater. 15, 1021 (1980)

    1980

  38. [46]

    L. P. Regnault, J. P. Boucher, J. Rossat-Mignod, J. Bouillot, R. Pynn, J. Y. Henry, and J. P. Renard, Physica B 136, 329 (1986)

    1986

  39. [47]

    L. P. Regnault, C. Lartigue, J. F. Legrand, B. Farago, J. Rossat-Mignod, and J. Y. Henry, Physica B 156, 298 (1989)

    1989

  40. [48]

    Gaveau, J

    P. Gaveau, J. P. Boucher, L. P. Regnault, and Y. Henry, J. Appl. Phys. 69, 6228 (1991)

    1991

  41. [49]

    Heinrich, H.-A

    M. Heinrich, H.-A. Krug von Nidda, A. Loidl, N. Rogado, and R. J. Cava, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 137601 (2003)

    2003

  42. [50]

    Waibel, G

    D. Waibel, G. Fischer, Th. Wolf, H. v. Lohneysen, and B. Pilawa, Phys. Rev. B 91, 214412 (2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    E. S. Klyushina, B. Lake, A. T. M. N. Islam, J. T. Park, A. Schneidewind, T. Guidi, E. A. Goremychkin, B. Klemke, and M. Mansson, Phys. Rev. B 96, 214428 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    A. R. Wildes, B. Roessli, B. Lebech, and K. W. Godfrey, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 10, 6417 (1998)

    1998

  45. [53]

    H. M. Ronnow, A. R. Wildes, and S. T. Bramwell, Phys- ica B 276, 676 (2000)

    2000

  46. [54]

    A. R. Wildes, H. M. Ronnow, B. Roessli, M. J. Harris, and K. W. Godfrey, Phys. Rev. B 74, 094422 (2006)

    2006

  47. [55]

    Yu. S. Karimov and Yu. N. Novikov, JETP Lett. 19, 159 (1974)

    1974

  48. [56]

    Yu. S. Karimov, Sov. Phys. JETP 41, 772 (1975)

    1975

  49. [57]

    Suzuki and H

    M. Suzuki and H. Ikeda, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 14, L923 (1981)

    1981

  50. [58]

    Murakami, M

    Y. Murakami, M. Matsuura, M. Suzuki, and H. Ikeda, J. Mag. Mag. Mater. 31-34, 1171 (1983)

    1983

  51. [59]

    Ikeda, Y

    H. Ikeda, Y. Endoh, and S. Mitsuda, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 54, 3232 (1985)

    1985

  52. [60]

    D. G. Wiesler, H. Zabel, and S. M. Shapiro, Z. Phys. B 93, 277 (1994)

    1994

  53. [61]

    Loft and T

    R. Loft and T. A. DeGrand, Phys. Rev. B 35, 8528 (1987)

    1987

  54. [62]

    Toyoki, Phys

    H. Toyoki, Phys. Rev. A 42, 911 (1990)

    1990

  55. [63]

    Mondello and N

    M. Mondello and N. Goldenfeld, Phys. Rev. A 42, 5865 20 (1990)

    1990

  56. [64]

    Yurke, A

    B. Yurke, A. N. Pargellis, T. Kovacs, and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. E 47, 1525 (1993)

    1993

  57. [65]

    A. J. Bray, A. J. Briant, and D. K. Jervis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1503 (2000)

    2000

  58. [66]

    Kawamura and S

    H. Kawamura and S. Miyashita, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 53, 4138 (1984)

    1984

  59. [67]

    Kawamura, A

    H. Kawamura, A. Yamamoto, and T. Okubo, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 79, 023701 (2010)

    2010

  60. [68]

    Kawamura, J

    H. Kawamura, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 320, 012002 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

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