Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 78 references

Local-moment magnetism in Mn-based pnictides

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Manganese pnictides sit on the localized side of a metal-to-insulator crossover, and their Néel temperatures measure the distance from it.

desk verdict Systematic DFT+slave-spin study places the Mn-122 pnictides on the local-moment side of an itinerant-to-localized crossover and explains the TN trend, but the blanket 'all compounds' claim in the abstract outruns the 0.1 eV margin for BaMn2P2. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.26595 v1 pith:RYMJFAX2 submitted 2025-10-30 cond-mat.str-el

Matteo Crispino , Niklas Witt , Tommaso Gorni , Giorgio Sangiovanni , Luca de' Medici This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el PACS 71.27.+a75.30.Et75.50.Ee
keywords Mottinsulatorsitinerant-to-localizedcrossovermanganesepnictidesNéeltemperatureslave-spinmean-fieldstrongelectroniccorrelationsHundmetalsantiferromagnetism
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 explain why the Néel temperature falls monotonically as the pnictogen gets heavier across four isovalent manganese pnictides BaMn2Pn2 (Pn = P, As, Sb, Bi). Using density-functional theory plus slave-spin mean-field, it argues that all four compounds sit on the strong-coupling side of an itinerant-to-localized moment crossover, the same interaction-driven transition that marks the Mott transition of the paramagnetic phase. On that side of the crossover, the computed energy stabilizing the antiferromagnetic order is largest for the P compound and smallest for Bi, matching the measured ordering temperatures 795 K > 618 K > 450 K > 387 K; a weak-coupling treatment would predict the opposite order. The point matters because it identifies the 122 Mn pnictides as magnetically ordered Mott insulators at half filling, connecting their magnetism to the same correlation physics invoked for iron-pnictide superconductors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the itinerant-to-localized moment crossover (ILMC), identified with the Mott transition of the high-temperature paramagnetic phase. Computationally, the paper tracks it through the total-energy difference between the G-type antiferromagnetic and paramagnetic solutions within slave-spin mean-field: at weak coupling AF is stabilized by potential energy (ΔE_pot < 0), while beyond the crossover it is stabilized by kinetic energy (ΔE_kin < 0), with the largest stabilization |ΔE_tot| occurring right at the crossover. The derived identity used to connect to experiment is the Heisenberg Weiss mean-field estimate T_N = ΔE_tot/(3 k_B), which overestimates absolute ordering t

What would settle it

Measure the paramagnetic state of BaMn2P2 above T_N: the strong-coupling claim requires a charge gap with local moments (a Mott insulator), so finding a metal with a Fermi surface above T_N would put it on the itinerant side and collapse the scaling. Independently, recomputing U_c with a cRPA calculation performed on the Mn compounds rather than on BaFe2As2 would settle whether U_c(BaMn2P2) exceeds the adopted 3 eV.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that all four compounds lie beyond the itinerant-to-localized moment crossover at the physically relevant interaction strength U = 3 eV. The crossover is located where the antiferromagnetic stabilization energy ΔE_tot = E_AF − E_PM switches from being dominated by a potential-energy gain (itinerant, Slater-type magnetism) to a kinetic-energy gain (local-moment, Heisenberg-type magnetism); this switch coincides with the Mott transition of the paramagnetic phase. Because the computed critical U for the Mott transition decreases from 2.9 eV (P) to 2.5, 2.1, 1.8 eV (As, Sb, Bi), all compounds are past the crossover at U = 3 eV, with the P compound closest to it. At this U th

Load-bearing premise

The paper adopts U = 3 eV and J/U = 0.15 from constrained-RPA estimates for the iron pnictide BaFe2As2 and transfers them unchanged to the manganese compounds; since BaMn2P2's computed Mott-transition interaction is 2.9 eV, only a 0.1 eV margin keeps it on the strong-coupling side, and the paper itself concedes that 'all the MnPns (but perhaps BaMn2P2)' sit there.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the strong-coupling side, the compound with the smallest lattice (BaMn2P2) is closest to the crossover and has the highest Néel temperature; moving away from the crossover by enlarging the pnictogen lowers T_N even though the local moment is slightly larger (staggered magnetization grows from 4.65 to 4.87 μB along P→Bi).
  • A weak-coupling (Slater/RPA) description of the same compounds predicts the opposite T_N ordering, so reproducing the experimental trend requires treating these systems as strongly correlated local-moment magnets.
  • The 122 Mn pnictides at half filling belong to the same Mott-insulator-at-half-filling scenario used for iron pnictides, which supports the idea that Mott physics shapes the normal-state properties (and possibly superconductivity) of the doped 122 family.
  • The relative robustness of the antiferromagnetic state across the series is captured even by a crude Weiss estimate, meaning the energy-difference diagnostic is a useful ordering principle for isovalent substitutions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the crossover scenario is right, pressure becomes a sharp test: compressing BaMn2P2 should push it closer to the crossover and raise T_N, while sufficient expansion should cross to the itinerant side, where the T_N ordering across the family would invert.
  • Since the crossover is defined by a maximum in |ΔE_tot|, one would predict a nonmonotonic T_N versus interaction strength or lattice parameter within a single compound — a dome-shaped magnetic ordering temperature centered at the crossover — which could be looked for in doped or strained samples.
  • A Mn-specific determination of the Hubbard U (rather than the value borrowed from the Fe compound) would settle the marginal case of BaMn2P2; if its U_c exceeds 3 eV, the blanket strong-coupling claim reduces to the three heavier compounds.
  • The energy-difference diagnostic used here could be applied to other half-filled 122 families to predict which stoichiometries are Mott-localized and therefore likely to show heavy-fermion or superconducting behavior upon doping.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the four half-filled 122 Mn pnictides BaMn2Pn2 (Pn = P, As, Sb, Bi) using DFT+slave-spin mean-field (SSMF). For each compound it maps the paramagnetic and G-type antiferromagnetic phases as functions of U (with fixed J/U = 0.15), extracts the Mott-transition critical interaction Uc and the magnetic onset Um, and decomposes the AF-PM energy difference into kinetic and potential contributions. The central claim is that at the adopted interaction strength U = 3 eV all four compounds lie on the strong-coupling side of an itinerant-to-localized moment crossover (ILMC), and that the experimental Néel temperatures (795, 618, 450, 387 K) scale with proximity to this crossover. A Weiss mean-field estimate TN = ΔEtot/3kB reproduces the normalized TN ratios. The paper argues that a weak-coupling picture gives the opposite trend and therefore that Mott physics is essential for these materials.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides a coherent explanation of the TN ordering across the MnPn series and supports the Hund-Mott picture of half-filled 122 pnictides. The study is comprehensive (all four compounds, same method, transparent total-energy decomposition) and the comparison with experimental TN uses independent external data with no parameter fitted to those data. The reproduction of the TN trend down to U = 2.5 eV, even when BaMn2P2 would be on the itinerant side, is a useful robustness check. The identification of the ILMC with the PM Mott-transition Uc and the energy-based crossover diagnostic is physically motivated and the local spin-susceptibility calculation adds a complementary weak-coupling falsifier. The main weakness is that the unqualified 'all compounds strong-coupling' statement relies on a single transferred Hubbard U with a very small margin for BaMn2P2; this is a load-bearing assumption that needs either dedicated Mn-specific cRPA input or a deliberately softened claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. I, footnote [44]; Table I; Abstract; Sec. V] The headline claim that all four compounds lie on the strong-coupling side of the ILMC rests entirely on the adopted U = 3 eV. This is not a Mn-specific cRPA value: the only cRPA number reported is U = 2.8 eV for BaFe2As2, with U ≈ 3 eV described as a slight upward adjustment that helped describe overdoped Fe compounds. For BaMn2P2 the computed Uc is 2.9 eV (Table I), leaving a 0.1 eV margin that is far smaller than typical cRPA uncertainty. The paper itself hedges in Sec. IV: 'all the MnPns (but perhaps BaMn2P2)' and 'all (or all but BaMn2P2 which might be around the ILMC)'. The Abstract and Sec. V nonetheless state unqualified that all compounds lie on the strong-coupling side. If a Mn-specific U of 2.8 eV or below is more appropriate, BaMn2P2 would sit on the itinerant side and the blanket claim would be false. I therefore ask the authors to either compute Mn-specific cRPA interaction
  2. [Sec. IV, Fig. 3 and Table II] The paper states that TN scales with 'distance from the ILMC', but the quantitative evidence is presented through |ΔEtot| at U = 3 eV, not through the directly defined distance U - Uc. At U = 3 eV the order of |ΔEtot| matches TN and also the order of U - Uc, but the two quantities are not shown to be equivalent; in fact, at U = 2.5 eV the TN hierarchy is already reproduced while BaMn2P2 lies below Uc. It would be helpful to display TN (or |ΔEtot|) as a function of U - Uc across a range of U, or to state explicitly why |ΔEtot| is the appropriate measure of distance from the crossover. As written, the 'distance' terminology is used interchangeably with the AF robustness ΔEtot, which is conceptually different and should be clarified.
  3. [Sec. IV, TN estimates and Table II] The theoretical normalized TN ratios (2.43, 1.77, 1.27) are systematically ~15-20% larger than the experimental ratios (2.05, 1.60, 1.16). The text calls this 'perfectly captured'; a more measured statement would acknowledge this systematic overshoot, especially since the absolute TN values are overestimated by roughly a factor of several. This does not invalidate the ordering, but the current wording overstates the quantitative agreement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Typos: 'AKNOWLEDGEMENTS' should be 'ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS'; 'consequentially' should be 'consequently'; 'computationally efficiency' should be 'computational efficiency'; in Appendix B 'equivalent to a a mean-field' has a duplicated article; author affiliation contains 'F¨ ur' (encoding artifact).
  2. [Appendix B] The constraint equation (B1) and the gauge choice (B3) are clearly presented, but it would help to state explicitly the sign convention for λimσ in Eq. (B5)-(B6) and how the gauge λ0 term enters the final energy expression, since the text says it affects the wave function but not the energy explicitly.
  3. [Sec. IV, χ0 analysis] The noninteracting local spin susceptibility and its maximum eigenvalue are quoted without specifying the momentum/frequency grid or the q-vector of the largest eigenvalue. Since the experimental order is G-type, it would be useful to state whether the maximum occurs at the G-type wave vector or whether only the local trace is meant as a qualitative indicator.
  4. [Table I] The staggered magnetization m at U = 3 eV is close to the Mn2+ spin-only value (5 μB) but slightly lower. A one-sentence note on whether this reflects quantum fluctuations, orbital contributions, or the SSMF treatment would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: T_N scaling is an independent comparison with computed DFT+SSMF energy differences; the transferred U=3 eV is a stated assumption, not a fit to T_N.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained: the experimental T_N values enter only as comparison data (Tables I/II) and are never used to set U, J, U_c, or ΔE_tot. The interaction parameters U=3 eV and J/U=0.15 are transferred transparently from cRPA for BaFe2As2 (Ref. 79) and the authors' prior 122-family calibration (footnote [44]); they are not adjusted to the Mn T_N data. The U_c values in Table I come from the DFT+SSMF computation (vanishing quasiparticle weight/charge fluctuations in the PM phase), and the T_N trend is compared with the computed |ΔE_tot| hierarchy at U=3 eV via the mean-field estimate T_N = ΔE_tot/3k_B—a physical approximation, not a fitted relation. No parameter is fitted to reproduce the experimental T_N ordering, and the trend is stated to survive down to U=2.5 eV. The only concern is robustness, not circularity: the abstract's unhedged 'all compounds' strong-coupling claim depends on U=3 eV exceeding U_c(BaMn2P2)=2.9 eV by only 0.1 eV, while Sec. IV explicitly hedges 'all the MnPns (but perhaps BaMn2P2)' and acknowledges BaMn2P2 'might be around the ILMC'. This is a parameter-uncertainty/overstatement issue, not a constructional equivalence between prediction and input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central tension is that a single interaction parameter U (3 eV) is imported from Fe-based 122 compounds and used to place all four Mn compounds on the localized side of the crossover. The conclusions are qualitatively stable down to U=2.5 eV for the T_N ordering, but the 'all compounds localized' statement is sensitive at the 0.1 eV level for BaMn2P2. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • U (Hubbard repulsion) = 3 eV
    Chosen from cRPA for BaFe2As2 (Ref. [79]) and assumed valid for MnPns. Load-bearing: at U=3 eV all four compounds sit above their computed Uc; BaMn2P2 has only 0.1 eV margin.
  • J/U (Hund's coupling ratio) = 0.15
    Same provenance as U; sets the Hund-metal physics. Not independently determined for MnPns.
  • Wannier disentanglement/frozen windows = Tab. III (e.g., -2.08 to 2.92 eV for BaMn2P2)
    Chosen by hand to reproduce the PBE low-energy bands; affects the tight-binding model but is not tuned to the magnetic or T_N target.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SSMF accurately captures local correlations and the G-type AF ground state
    The method is from Ref. [24]; no benchmark against exact diagonalization or QMC for these compounds. Prior DMFT on BaMn2As2 required a reduction factor ~2 for T_N.
  • domain assumption Density-density form of the interaction (Eq. 2) is sufficient
    Spin-flip and pair-hopping terms are neglected; the authors note this likely overestimates the magnetic contribution to the energy.
  • domain assumption Only the five Mn d orbitals are needed for the low-energy model
    Pnictogen states are omitted; prior studies sometimes included them.
  • ad hoc to paper The ILMC is identified with the PM Mott-transition critical interaction Uc
    The authors equate the crossover location with Uc of the paramagnetic phase, justified by the jump in ΔE_tot at Uc (Sec. III), but the crossover in the AF phase could in principle be shifted.
  • domain assumption Experimental crystal structures from Ref. [26] are exact
    Lattice parameters a, c, z_Pn are used without relaxation; any structural uncertainty propagates into the computed Uc and ΔE.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Local-moment magnetism in Mn-based pnictides." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RYMJFAX2

@misc{pith2026251026595,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Local-moment magnetism in Mn-based pnictides},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RYMJFAX2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.26595}
}
abstract

We report a comprehensive study of electronic-correlation effects in Manganese-based antiferromagnetic pnictides BaMn$_2$Pn$_2$ (Pn=P,As,Sb,Bi). Our density functional theory plus slave-spin mean-field simulations indicate that all the compounds lie on the strong-coupling side of an itinerant-to-localized moment crossover, corresponding to the critical interaction strength for the Mott transition in the high-temperature paramagnetic phase. We also show that the experimental N\'eel temperature of each compound scales with the distance from this crossover.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.26595 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Charge fluctuations for the antiferromagnetic (red cir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. For nonzero ∆Etot, we can easily identify a hi- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Kinetic (∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Total energy difference between AF and PM phase, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Kamihara, T

    Y. Kamihara, T. Watanabe, M. Hirano, and H. Hosono, Journal of the American Chemical Society130, 3296 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    A. S. Sefat, Reports on Progress in Physics74, 124502 (2011)

    2011

  3. [3]

    Sun, X.-J

    L. Sun, X.-J. Chen, J. Guo, P. Gao, Q.-Z. Huang, H. Wang, M. Fang, X. Chen, G. Chen, Q. Wu,et al., Nature483, 67 (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    de la Cruz, Q

    C. de la Cruz, Q. Huang, J. W. Lynn, J. Li, W. R. II, J. L. Zarestky, H. A. Mook, G. F. Chen, J. L. Luo, N. L. Wang, and P. Dai, Nature453, 899 (2008)

    2008

  5. [5]

    Huang, Y

    Q. Huang, Y. Qiu, W. Bao, M. A. Green, J. W. Lynn, Y. C. Gasparovic, T. Wu, G. Wu, and X. H. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 257003 (2008)

    2008

  6. [6]

    Kasahara, T

    S. Kasahara, T. Shibauchi, K. Hashimoto, K. Ikada, S. Tonegawa, R. Okazaki, H. Shishido, H. Ikeda, H. Takeya, K. Hirata, T. Terashima, and Y. Matsuda, Phys. Rev. B81, 184519 (2010)

    2010

  7. [7]

    Hardy, P

    F. Hardy, P. Burger, T. Wolf, R. Fisher, P. Schweiss, P. Adelmann, R. Heid, R. Fromknecht, R. Eder, D. Ernst, et al., Europhysics Letters91, 47008 (2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    Hardy, A

    F. Hardy, A. B¨ ohmer, L. de’Medici, M. Capone, G. Gio- vannetti, R. Eder, L. Wang, M. He, T. Wolf, P. Schweiss, et al., Physical Review B94, 205113 (2016)

    2016

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Crispino, P

    M. Crispino, P. V. Arribi, A. Shukla, F. Hardy, A.-A. Haghighirad, T. Wolf, R. Heid, M. Merz, C. Meingast, T. Gorni, A. Avella, and L. de’ Medici, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 076504 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    Georges and G

    A. Georges and G. Kotliar, Physics Today77, 46 (2024), https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article- pdf/77/4/46/20086423/46 1 pt.wqrz.qpjx.pdf

    2024

  3. [11]

    Haule and G

    K. Haule and G. Kotliar, New journal of physics11, 025021 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    de’ Medici, S

    L. de’ Medici, S. R. Hassan, M. Capone, and X. Dai, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 126401 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    Z. Yin, K. Haule, and G. Kotliar, Nature materials10, 932 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Yu and Q

    R. Yu and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. B86, 085104 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    de’Medici, G

    L. de’Medici, G. Giovannetti, and M. Capone, Physical review letters112, 177001 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    S. Avci, O. Chmaissem, D.-Y. Chung, S. Rosenkranz, E. A. Goremychkin, J.-P. Castellan, I. S. Todorov, J. A. Schlueter, H. Claus, A. Daoud-Aladine,et al., Physical Review B85, 184507 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    Marty, A

    K. Marty, A. D. Christianson, C. H. Wang, M. Matsuda, H. Cao, L. H. VanBebber, J. L. Zarestky, D. J. Singh, A. S. Sefat, and M. D. Lumsden, Phys. Rev. B83, 060509 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    de’ Medici, Phys

    L. de’ Medici, Phys. Rev. B83, 205112 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    de’ Medici, J

    L. de’ Medici, J. Mravlje, and A. Georges, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 256401 (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    Ishida and A

    H. Ishida and A. Liebsch, Phys. Rev. B81, 054513 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    M. J. Calder´ on, G. Le´ on, B. Valenzuela, and E. Bas- cones, Phys. Rev. B86, 104514 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Bascones, B

    E. Bascones, B. Valenzuela, and M. J. Calder´ on, Phys. Rev. B86, 174508 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Misawa, K

    T. Misawa, K. Nakamura, and M. Imada, Physical re- view letters108, 177007 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Crispino, M

    M. Crispino, M. Chatzieleftheriou, T. Gorni, and L. de’Medici, Physical Review B107, 155149 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Singh, M

    Y. Singh, M. A. Green, Q. Huang, A. Kreyssig, R. J. McQueeney, D. C. Johnston, and A. I. Goldman, Phys. Rev. B80, 100403 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    B. S. Jacobs and A. Pandey, Phys. Rev. Mater.7, 044410 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    J. An, A. S. Sefat, D. J. Singh, and M.-H. Du, Phys. Rev. B79, 075120 (2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    Ogasawara, K.-K

    T. Ogasawara, K.-K. Huynh, S. Y. Matsushita, M. Ki- mata, T. Tahara, T. Kida, M. Hagiwara, D. Arˇ con, and K. Tanigaki, Phys. Rev. B106, L041114 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    D. C. Johnston, R. J. McQueeney, B. Lake, A. Ho- necker, M. E. Zhitomirsky, R. Nath, Y. Furukawa, V. P. Antropov, and Y. Singh, Phys. Rev. B84, 094445 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Huynh, T

    K.-K. Huynh, T. Ogasawara, K. Kitahara, Y. Tanabe, S. Y. Matsushita, T. Tahara, T. Kida, M. Hagiwara, D. Arˇ con, and K. Tanigaki, Phys. Rev. B99, 195111 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Ogasawara, K.-K

    T. Ogasawara, K.-K. Huynh, T. Tahara, T. Kida, M. Hagiwara, D. Arˇ con, M. Kimata, S. Y. Matsushita, K. Nagata, and K. Tanigaki, Phys. Rev. B103, 125108 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    D. E. McNally, S. Zellman, Z. P. Yin, K. W. Post, H. He, K. Hao, G. Kotliar, D. Basov, C. C. Homes, and M. C. Aronson, Phys. Rev. B92, 115142 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Zhang, P

    W.-L. Zhang, P. Richard, A. van Roekeghem, S.-M. Nie, N. Xu, P. Zhang, H. Miao, S.-F. Wu, J.-X. Yin, B. B. Fu, L.-Y. Kong, T. Qian, Z.-J. Wang, Z. Fang, A. S. Sefat, S. Biermann, and H. Ding, Phys. Rev. B94, 155155 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Zingl, E

    M. Zingl, E. Assmann, P. Seth, I. Krivenko, and M. Aich- horn, Phys. Rev. B94, 045130 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Y. X. Yao, J. Schmalian, C. Z. Wang, K. M. Ho, and G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev. B84, 245112 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    Singh, A

    Y. Singh, A. Ellern, and D. C. Johnston, Phys. Rev. B 79, 094519 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    N. S. Sangeetha, V. Smetana, A.-V. Mudring, and D. C. Johnston, Phys. Rev. B97, 014402 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Saparov and A

    B. Saparov and A. S. Sefat, Journal of Solid State Chem- istry204, 32 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Hubbard, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    J. Hubbard, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences281, 401 (1964)

    1964

  32. [40]

    Kanamori, Progress of Theoretical Physics30, 275 (1963), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/30/3/275/5278869/30-3-275.pdf

    J. Kanamori, Progress of Theoretical Physics30, 275 (1963), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/30/3/275/5278869/30-3-275.pdf

    1963

  33. [41]

    Georges, L

    A. Georges, L. d. Medici, and J. Mravlje, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics4, 137 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-020911- 125045

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    de’Medici, A

    L. de’Medici, A. Georges, and S. Biermann, Phys. Rev. B72, 205124 (2005)

    2005

  35. [43]

    Yu and Q

    R. Yu and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. B96, 125110 (2017). [44]U=2.8eV andJ=0.43eV (yieldingJ/U≃0.15) are the values calculated in Ref.[79] for BaFe2As2. The Sommer- feld coefficient of the whole 122 family is quite correctly reproduced[8] by the present approach with these values. It wa...

    2017

  36. [45]

    W. F. Brinkman and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B2, 4302 (1970)

    1970

  37. [46]

    Kotliar and A

    G. Kotliar and A. E. Ruckenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 1362 (1986)

    1986

  38. [47]

    Klejnberg and J

    A. Klejnberg and J. Spa lek, Phys. Rev. B57, 12041 (1998)

    1998

  39. [48]

    Fanfarillo and E

    L. Fanfarillo and E. Bascones, Phys. Rev. B92, 075136 (2015)

    2015

  40. [49]

    We notice also that the ratio between the critical interac- tion for the MIT in the PM phase and for the developing of a staggered magnetization isU c/Um ≃2 for all the 122-Mn

  41. [50]

    Taranto, G

    C. Taranto, G. Sangiovanni, K. Held, M. Capone, A. Georges, and A. Toschi, Phys. Rev. B85, 085124 (2012)

    2012

  42. [51]

    Mravlje, M

    J. Mravlje, M. Aichhorn, and A. Georges, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 197202 (2012)

    2012

  43. [52]

    Chatzieleftheriou, S

    M. Chatzieleftheriou, S. Biermann, and E. A. Stepanov, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 236504 (2024)

    2024

  44. [53]

    E. A. Stepanov, S. Brener, V. Harkov, M. I. Katsnelson, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Phys. Rev. B105, 155151 (2022)

    2022

  45. [54]

    J. C. Slater, Phys. Rev.82, 538 (1951)

    1951

  46. [55]

    Szilva, Y

    A. Szilva, Y. Kvashnin, E. A. Stepanov, L. Nordstr¨ om, O. Eriksson, A. I. Lichtenstein, and M. I. Katsnelson, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 035004 (2023)

    2023

  47. [56]

    Montorsi,The Hubbard Model: A Reprint Volume (World Scientific, 1992)

    A. Montorsi,The Hubbard Model: A Reprint Volume (World Scientific, 1992)

    1992

  48. [57]

    K. A. Chao, J. Spalek, and A. M. Oles, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics10, L271 (1977)

    1977

  49. [58]

    A. H. MacDonald, S. M. Girvin, and D. Yoshioka, Phys. Rev. B37, 9753 (1988)

    1988

  50. [59]

    E. Gull, P. Werner, X. Wang, M. Troyer, and A. J. Millis, Europhysics Letters84, 37009 (2008)

    2008

  51. [60]

    Sch¨ afer, F

    T. Sch¨ afer, F. Geles, D. Rost, G. Rohringer, E. Arrigoni, K. Held, N. Bl¨ umer, M. Aichhorn, and A. Toschi, Phys. Rev. B91, 125109 (2015)

    2015

  52. [61]

    A. M. Oles, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics15, L1065 (1982)

    1982

  53. [62]

    Rohringer and A

    G. Rohringer and A. Toschi, Phys. Rev. B94, 125144 (2016)

    2016

  54. [63]

    Karolak, M

    M. Karolak, M. Edelmann, and G. Sangiovanni, Phys. Rev. B91, 075108 (2015)

    2015

  55. [64]

    Fratino, P

    L. Fratino, P. S´ emon, M. Charlebois, G. Sordi, and A.- M. S. Tremblay, Phys. Rev. B95, 235109 (2017)

    2017

  56. [65]

    J. Li, M. Wallerberger, N. Chikano, C.-N. Yeh, E. Gull, and H. Shinaoka, Phys. Rev. B101, 035144 (2020)

    2020

  57. [66]

    N. Witt, E. G. C. P. van Loon, T. Nomoto, R. Arita, and T. O. Wehling, Phys. Rev. B103, 205148 (2021)

    2021

  58. [67]

    Shinaoka, J

    H. Shinaoka, J. Otsuki, M. Ohzeki, and K. Yoshimi, Phys. Rev. B96, 035147 (2017)

    2017

  59. [68]

    Shinaoka, N

    H. Shinaoka, N. Chikano, E. Gull, J. Li, T. Nomoto, J. Otsuki, M. Wallerberger, T. Wang, and K. Yoshimi, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 63 (2022)

    2022

  60. [69]

    Wallerberger, S

    M. Wallerberger, S. Badr, S. Hoshino, S. Huber, F. Kak- izawa, T. Koretsune, Y. Nagai, K. Nogaki, T. Nomoto, H. Mori, J. Otsuki, S. Ozaki, T. Plaikner, R. Sakurai, C. Vogel, N. Witt, K. Yoshimi, and H. Shinaoka, Soft- wareX21, 101266 (2023)

    2023

  61. [70]

    Blundell,Magnetism in condensed matter(OUP Ox- ford, 2001)

    S. Blundell,Magnetism in condensed matter(OUP Ox- ford, 2001)

    2001

  62. [71]

    Rohringer, A

    G. Rohringer, A. Toschi, A. Katanin, and K. Held, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 256402 (2011)

    2011

  63. [72]

    A. Garg, H. R. Krishnamurthy, and M. Randeria, Phys. Rev. B72, 024517 (2005)

    2005

  64. [73]

    Kyung, A

    B. Kyung, A. Georges, and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Phys. Rev. B74, 024501 (2006)

    2006

  65. [74]

    Toschi, M

    A. Toschi, M. Capone, and C. Castellani, Phys. Rev. B 72, 235118 (2005)

    2005

  66. [75]

    Giannozzi, S

    P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococ- cioni, I. Dabo,et al., Journal of physics: Condensed mat- ter21, 395502 (2009)

    2009

  67. [76]

    Giannozzi, O

    P. Giannozzi, O. Andreussi, T. Brumme, O. Bunau, M. B. Nardelli, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, M. Cococcioni,et al., Journal of physics: Condensed matter29, 465901 (2017)

    2017

  68. [77]

    van Setten, M

    M. van Setten, M. Giantomassi, E. Bousquet, M. Ver- straete, D. Hamann, X. Gonze, and G.-M. Rignanese, Computer Physics Communications226, 39 (2018)

    2018

  69. [78]

    Pizzi, V

    G. Pizzi, V. Vitale, R. Arita, S. Bl¨ ugel, F. Freimuth, G. G´ eranton, M. Gibertini, D. Gresch, C. Johnson, T. Koretsune, J. Iba˜ nez-Azpiroz, H. Lee, J.-M. Lihm, D. Marchand, A. Marrazzo, Y. Mokrousov, J. I. Mustafa, Y. Nohara, Y. Nomura, L. Paulatto, S. Ponc´ e, T. Pon- wei...

    2020

  70. [79]

    Miyake, K

    T. Miyake, K. Nakamura, R. Arita, and M. Imada, Jour- nal of the Physical Society of Japan79, 044705 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.