Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Magnetic frustration and weak Mn magnetic ordering in EuMn$_2$P$_2$

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read EuMn2P2 hosts a weak manganese magnetic ordering near 50 K, coexisting with the europium antiferromagnetic transition at 18 K.

desk verdict A careful multi-technique study that plausibly identifies weak Mn order near 50 K in EuMn2P2, but the Mn-specific probes are null and the evidence is circumstantial; deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01355 v1 pith:Q7DFQEBS submitted 2025-01-02 cond-mat.str-el

Sarah Krebber , Jörg Sichelschmidt , Pierre Chailloleau , Asmaa El Mard , Marvin Kopp , Michael Baenitz , Kurt Kummer , Denis V. Vyalikh
show 3 more authors
Jens Müller Cornelius Krellner Kristin Kliemt
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords EuMn2P2weakmagneticorderingfrustrationtriangularlatticeelectronspinresonancenuclearheatcapacityEu-based122pnictide
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

EuMn2P2, a layered compound with europium on triangular planes separated by manganese-phosphorus blocks, has been known to order antiferromagnetically at 18 K through its europium moments. This paper argues that the manganese sublattice itself undergoes a weak, likely frustrated magnetic ordering near 51 K and 48.5 K, with an electron-spin-resonance temperature scale of about 47 K. The argument rests on four independent measurements: anomalies in the Eu$^{2+}$ ESR linewidth, resonance field and intensity; two small heat-capacity anomalies; and a sharp loss of ${}^{31}$P NMR intensity below about 50 K. The ordered manganese moment is estimated to be below about 0.06 Bohr magnetons, which is why the transition is nearly invisible in magnetization, resistivity, and element-specific X-ray dichroism. If the claim is correct, EuMn2P2 becomes a test bed for weak 3d magnetism on a frustrated triangular lattice coexisting with dominant 4f moments.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Eu$^{2+}$ electron spin resonance line, which acts as a local probe of the Mn spin background: the line stays a single exchange-narrowed Lorentzian across the 47 K scale, while its linewidth and resonance field follow a Curie-Weiss form $\propto (T-47)^{-1}$ approaching $T_M = 47$ K from above and then kink below it. The supporting machinery is the combination of heat capacity with large heating pulses to resolve the two tiny anomalies at 48.5 and 51 K, and ${}^{31}$P NMR with its hyperfine coupling constant $A_{\rm hf} = -5.11$ kOe/$\mu_B$, which converts the observed wipe-out and line broadening into an upper bound of $0.06\,\mu_B$ for the Mn moment change. The interpretation framework is magnetic frustration on the triangular Mn sublattice, which the paper invokes to explain why such a weak order coexists with the large paramagnetic Eu background and why it escapes X-ray magnetic dichroism.

What would settle it

A search for a magnetic Bragg peak by neutron diffraction, or an internal-field signature by muon spin rotation, on a tin-free EuMn2P2 crystal between 45 and 55 K would settle the claim: if no magnetic signal appears at a sensitivity below $0.05\,\mu_B$ while the heat-capacity and ESR anomalies persist, the weak-Mn-ordering interpretation would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that EuMn2P2 exhibits intrinsic weak magnetic ordering of the Mn spins below about 51 K, in addition to the A-type antiferromagnetic order of the Eu$^{2+}$ ions at $T_{\rm N} = 18$ K. The evidence is the set of coincident anomalies at $T_1 = 51$ K and $T_2 = 48.5$ K: the ESR linewidth and resonance field of the Eu$^{2+}$ resonance show kinks and a $(T-47)^{-1}$ Curie-Weiss divergence above the 47 K scale; the heat capacity shows two small peaks whose field dependence (isotropic broadening and shift upward for $T_1$, anisotropic sharpening and upward shift for $T_2$) is inconsistent with a purely structural transition; and the ${}^{31}$P NMR spin-echo intensity loses about two-thirds of its value between 72.5 K and 40 K, with a wipe-out onset near 50 K. From the NMR hyperfine coupling the paper derives an upper bound of about $0.06\,\mu_B$ for the Mn moment variation, while XMCD puts the field-aligned Mn spin moment below $0.03\,\mu_B$. The authors interpret the small entropy of the transitions (about 0.6% of $R\ln 2$) as the signature of a strongly frustrated triangular Mn sublattice that orders only weakly, with a possible ferromagnetic component at $T_1$ and a frustrated component at $T_2$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the very small heat-capacity peaks at 48.5 and 51 K, the ESR kinks near 47 K, and the NMR wipe-out below 50 K are intrinsic magnetic transitions of the Mn sublattice and not artifacts of tin inclusions, sample variation, or the strong europium paramagnetic response.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Below 51 K EuMn2P2 hosts two coexisting magnetic subsystems: a dominant Eu$^{2+}$ antiferromagnet ordering at 18 K and a much weaker Mn order, so local probes (ESR, NMR, heat capacity) are needed to see the Mn transition at all.
  • The field dependence of the Mn transitions—$T_1$ shifting isotropically to higher temperatures and broadening, $T_2$ sharpening and shifting anisotropically—rules out a simple structural origin and points to a ferromagnetic component at $T_1$ and frustration at $T_2$.
  • The estimated ordered Mn moment of $<0.06\,\mu_B$ and the XMCD upper bound of $0.03\,\mu_B$ imply that any Mn moment must be either very small, mostly along the $c$-axis where the dichroism geometry is blind, or strongly frustrated.
  • The ${}^{31}$P NMR wipe-out constitutes a sensitive indicator of the hidden Mn order, since neither magnetization nor resistivity shows any feature at $T_1$ and $T_2$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the weak order is intrinsic, the same local-probe strategy could be applied to other Eu$T_2$Pn$_2$ compounds to search for hidden 3d magnetism that bulk measurements miss.
  • Measuring the ${}^{31}$P spin-lattice relaxation rate across the 50 K wipe-out would test whether the signal loss is caused by critical slowing down of Mn fluctuations rather than by static broadening.
  • Hydrostatic pressure, which has been shown to tune Eu magnetism in related 122 compounds, could strengthen or suppress the Mn order and thereby discriminate between frustration-limited and impurity-stabilized ordering.
  • The near-equality of the Curie-Weiss scale (47 K), the heat-capacity transitions (48.5 and 51 K), and the NMR wipe-out onset (50 K) suggests a single underlying temperature scale, so a unified microscopic model should reproduce all three simultaneously.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a multi-technique study of EuMn2P2 single crystals, combining ESR, heat capacity, magnetization, 31P NMR, XMCD/XMLD, and resistivity. The authors confirm the known Eu2+ antiferromagnetic transition at TN = 18 K and present evidence for an additional temperature scale near 47-51 K: a kink in the ESR linewidth/resonance field/intensity at TM = 47 K, two small heat-capacity anomalies at T1 = 51 K and T2 = 48.5 K, and a strong suppression of the 31P NMR echo intensity below about 50 K. These observations are attributed to weak magnetic ordering of the Mn sublattice, with an estimated Mn moment below 0.06 μB. The XMCD and XMLD measurements, however, detect no Mn signal, and the authors speculate that the ordering is either out-of-plane or frustrated. The central claim is that ESR, heat capacity, magnetization, and NMR 'convincingly show' weak Mn order below 51 K.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, EuMn2P2 would be a rare example of weak magnetic ordering of Mn on a frustrated triangular lattice in the 122 family, with an ordered moment below 0.06 μB. The paper is valuable for its rich experimental dataset, the internal consistency between the ESR, heat-capacity, and NMR anomalies, and the honest reporting of the null XMCD/XMLD results. The explicit upper limit on the Mn moment and the comparison with non-magnetic isostructural compounds are useful constraints. However, the central claim currently rests on indirect bulk probes, and the element-specific direct probes are negative, so the significance of the result depends on whether the indirect anomalies can be tied to intrinsic Mn order rather than to impurities or dynamic fluctuations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV Discussion, Section III E] The statement that ESR, heat capacity, magnetization, and NMR 'convincingly show the presence of weak Mn order below 51 K' is not supported by the element-specific measurements in the same paper. The XMCD data give an upper limit of μMn < 0.03 μB at 23 K and 9 T, and the XMLD measurements find no Mn signal at 5-51 K, including at T = 51 K which is the claimed onset of Mn order. Because these direct probes are negative, the indirect bulk anomalies could also arise from impurity phases (the samples contain 1-5% Sn inclusions) or from enhanced spin fluctuations without static order. The suggestion of a c-axis-oriented or frustrated Mn order is an unverified escape. The authors should either soften the conclusion to 'suggestive of' weak Mn ordering or provide additional evidence, such as neutron diffraction with polarization analysis or a quantitative model of how a static 0.03-0.06 μB Mn moment produces the observed ESR and NMR effects.
  2. [Section II C, Figure 4] The thermal-resolution description of the heat capacity measurements appears inconsistent with the claim of two distinct anomalies. The paper states that to resolve weak anomalies, large heating pulses with typical temperature rises of 6 K were used. A 6 K thermal pulse averages the specific heat over a window that is larger than the 2.5 K separation between T1 = 51 K and T2 = 48.5 K, making the resolution of two separate peaks implausible. Please clarify whether '6 K' is a typo, how the single-slope analysis handles such large pulses, and what the effective temperature resolution actually is. This is load-bearing because the two anomalies T1 and T2 are the only thermodynamic evidence for two distinct transitions.
  3. [Section III C, Section V Summary] The abstract and summary list 'magnetization' among the techniques that show weak Mn order, but the magnetization data in the manuscript show no clear feature at T1 and T2: Sec. III C states that 'no clear feature was seen around the T1 and T2 transition temperatures in χ(T)' and Fig. 6(b) shows only a slight change in slope. Citing magnetization as a confirmatory technique overstates the experimental evidence. The manuscript should be corrected to reflect what the magnetization data actually show.
  4. [Section IV Discussion, heat capacity entropy] The combined entropy of the T1 and T2 anomalies is given as S = 0.035 J mol−1 K−1, only 0.6% of R ln 2 expected for ordering of a local Mn moment. This extremely small entropy is not discussed quantitatively. Such a small value could indicate that the anomalies are not bulk thermodynamic transitions of a local-moment system, or that only a tiny fraction of the sample orders. A comparison with the expected impurity contribution from Sn inclusions (1-5%) or from other minority phases would help the reader judge whether the anomalies are intrinsic. Please provide an estimate of the impurity-phase contribution to the heat capacity in this temperature range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III E heading] The heading 'X-ray magnetic circular and linear dicroism' contains a typo; it should read 'dichroism'.
  2. [Figure 3] The ESR data in Fig. 3 appear to be plotted without error bars, and the fits use the same TM = 47 K value that is read from the data being fitted. The authors should state the uncertainty in TM and show whether the (T − 47)−1 form is uniquely favored over other divergences.
  3. [Section IV Discussion] The sentence 'the lineshape keeps to be Lorentzian across the 47 K scale' is awkward; it should read 'remains Lorentzian across the 47 K anomaly.'
  4. [Section III F and Fig. S9] The resistivity shoulder near 142 K is described as sample-dependent; the connection to the onset of Mn fluctuations in Ref. [20] should therefore be phrased as tentative, since the sample dependence weakens the association.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the weak-Mn-order claim rests on several independent anomalies; the ESR (T-47)^-1 fits are descriptive and separately anchored by heat-capacity and NMR features.

full rationale

The paper makes no derived prediction in the sense of the circularity checklist: it reports new measurements (ESR, heat capacity, magnetization, NMR, XMCD/XMLD, resistivity) and interprets anomalies near 47-51 K as weak Mn ordering. Each claimed anomaly is read from a distinct probe, and none is generated by fitting the others. The ESR parameter TM ≈ 47 K is extracted from the same ESR data that are later described by (T-47)^-1 linewidth and resonance-field fits, but this is a descriptive parametrization of the same data rather than a prediction, and it is independently anchored by the heat-capacity anomalies at T1 = 51 K and T2 = 48.5 K and by the 31P NMR line broadening and intensity wipe-out below about 50 K. The authors do not invoke a uniqueness theorem or a load-bearing self-citation: the only overlapping-author citations concern ESR intensity integration and resonance lineshapes in ordered spin systems, neither of which forces the Mn-order conclusion. The null XMCD/XMLD results and the absence of a clear magnetization anomaly are acknowledged limitations of the evidence, not circular reductions of the argument. Thus no step equates a claimed output with an input by construction, and the central claim remains an empirical interpretation rather than a self-referential derivation.

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

The central claim rests mainly on phenomenological fits and domain assumptions about how ESR, NMR, and heat-capacity anomalies map onto magnetic order. No new particles or forces are introduced. The most fragile element is the assumption that the small anomalies are intrinsic Mn ordering rather than artifacts, given that the element-specific XMCD/XMLD probes do not detect Mn order.

free parameters (8)
  • TM (ESR anomaly temperature) = 47 K
    Used as the divergence temperature in (T-47)^-1 fits to ESR linewidth and resonance field; read from the same data being fitted.
  • theta_W (ESR intensity) = +8 K
    Curie-Weiss temperature of the ESR intensity, claimed to be the same above and below 47 K.
  • theta_W (susceptibility) = +7 K (H || 001), +10 K (H || 100)
    Curie-Weiss fits between 150 K and 290 K.
  • Curie constant C = 110 m3K/mol
    Used with theta_W to obtain effective moment 8.4 muB.
  • Effective moment mu_eff = 8.4 muB per formula unit
    From Curie-Weiss fit; slightly above the free Eu2+ value, taken as a possible Mn contribution.
  • Activation energy EA = 213 meV
    From Arrhenius fit of resistivity; used to characterize semiconducting behavior, not central to the Mn claim.
  • Hyperfine coupling Ahf = -5.11 kOe/muB
    From the slope of the K-chi plot; used to estimate the Mn moment upper limit of 0.06 muB from the NMR linewidth.
  • Knight shift offset K0 = -2.35%
    Temperature-independent shift from the same K-chi fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The single ESR line is an Eu2+ resonance whose g-factor identifies it as such.
    Section III A: g = 1.984 (H || 001) and g = 2.003 (H perp 001) are used to assign the line to Eu2+; if the line had another origin, the Mn-correlation interpretation of its width would not follow.
  • domain assumption Curie-Weiss law describes the ESR intensity and bulk susceptibility in the analyzed ranges.
    Sections III A and III C; used to extract theta_W and effective moments, and to infer a single theta_W above and below 47 K.
  • domain assumption XMCD sum rules give a reliable upper bound for the Mn magnetic moment.
    Section III E; the authors note sum rules for Mn are usually prohibited by the small L3-L2 separation, so this assumption is fragile.
  • domain assumption The K-chi (Clogston-Jaccarino) relation is linear above about 50 K, giving a constant hyperfine coupling.
    Section III D and IV; below 50 K the linearity breaks down, and the authors use this breakdown as a fingerprint of Mn magnetism.
  • domain assumption The heat-capacity anomalies are magnetic in origin because their peak positions shift with applied field.
    Section IV; field dependence is used to rule out structural origin, but the shift is small and no quantitative model is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic frustration and weak Mn magnetic ordering in EuMn$_2$P$_2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q7DFQEBS

@misc{pith2026250101355,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic frustration and weak Mn magnetic ordering in EuMn$_2$P$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q7DFQEBS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01355}
}
abstract

We report on the electron spin resonance (ESR), heat capacity, magnetization, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), magnetic circular and linear dichroism (XMCD, XMLD), as well as the electrical resistivity of EuMn$_{2}$P$_{2}$ single crystals. Antiferromagnetic order of Eu was observed in several quantities at $T^{\rm Eu}_{\rm N}\,=\,18\,\rm K$. The temperature dependencies of ESR linewidth and resonance shift show, when approaching the Eu-ordered state, a divergence towards $T^{\rm Eu}_{\rm N}$, indicating the growing importance of magnetic correlations and the build-up of internal magnetic fields. An additional temperature scale of $\approx 47\,\rm K$ has considerable impact on linewidth, resonance field and intensity. This points to the presence of weak Mn-based ordering. The observed ESR line is interpreted as an Eu$^{2+}$ resonance, which probes the weak magnetic background of the Mn subsystem. Such picture is suggested by the lineshape which keeps to be Lorentzian across the $47\,\rm K$ scale and by the ESR intensity which can be described by the same Curie-Weiss temperature above and below $47\,\rm K$. In the same temperature range anomalies were observed at $48.5\,\rm K$ and $51\,\rm K$ in the heat capacity data as well as a pronounced broadening of the NMR signal of the EuMn$_{2}$P$_{2}$ samples. In XMCD and XMLD measurements, this weak magnetic order could not be detected in the same temperature range which might be due to the small magnetic moment, with a potential $c$-component or frustration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01355 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) EuMn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Typical ESR spectra (first field-derivative of absorbed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Temperature dependence of resonance field (top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. EuMn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Molar magnetic susceptibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows the isotropic shift given by 31Kiso = (2Ka,b+ 2. 5 2. 6 2. 7 2. 8 0. 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1 . 0 40 50 60 70 0. 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 40K 1 . 0 42K 44K 46K 48K 50K 52K 54K 56K 58K 60K 64K 67. 5 K 70K 72. 5K 31 P N o r m al i z e d s pi n e c h o i n t e n si t y …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (a) XMCD spectra taken at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. (a) Temperature dependent resistivity with an AC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Structural design and multiple magnetic orderings of the intergrowth compound Eu$_2$CuMn$_2$P$_3$

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new intergrowth compound, Eu2CuMn2P3, combines EuCuP and EuMn2P2 layers and shows Mn antiferromagnetic order at 80 K, Eu order at 29 K, a spin reorientation at 14.5 K, and weak ferromagnetism.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J.-Z. Ma, S. M. Nie, C. J. Yi, J. Jandke, T. Shang, M. Y. Yao, M. Naamneh, L. Q. Yan, Y. Sun, A. Chik- ina, V. N. Strocov, M. Medarde, M. Song, Y.-M. Xiong, G. Xu, W. Wulfhekel, J. Mesot, M. Reticcioli, C. Fran- chini, C. Mudry, M. M¨ uller, Y. G. Shi, T. Qian, H. Ding, and M. Shi, Science Advances 5, eaaw4718 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    L.-L. Wang, N. H. Jo, B. Kuthanazhi, Y. Wu, R. J. Mc- Queeney, A. Kaminski, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B 99, 245147 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    A hysteresis opens between µ0H = 2.5 T and 4 T for both field directions, which becomes larger at 10 K, Fig

    direction and is consistent with neutron diffraction which revealed A-type AFM Eu order with moments ly- ing in the a − a plane at 1.4 K with FM coupling in the plane and AFM coupling of the nearest-neighbour spins along the c axis [19]. A hysteresis opens between µ0H = 2.5 T and 4 T for both field directions, which becomes larger at 10 K, Fig. S6(c) [41]...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Z.-C. Wang, J. D. Rogers, X. Yao, R. Nichols, K. Atay, B. Xu, J. Franklin, I. Sochnikov, P. J. Ryan, D. Haskel, and F. Tafti, Advanced Materials 33, 2005755 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Sunko, Y

    V. Sunko, Y. Sun, M. Vranas, C. C. Homes, C. Lee, E. Donoway, Z.-C. Wang, S. Balguri, M. B. Mahen- dru, A. Ruiz, B. Gunn, R. Basak, S. Blanco-Canosa, E. Schierle, E. Weschke, F. Tafti, A. Frano, and J. Oren- stein, Phys. Rev. B 107, 144404 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    H. Su, B. Gong, W. Shi, H. Yang, H. Wang, W. Xia, Z. Yu, P.-J. Guo, J. Wang, L. Ding, L. Xu, X. Li, X. Wang, Z. Zou, N. Yu, Z. Zhu, Y. Chen, Z. Liu, K. Liu, G. Li, and Y. Guo, APL Materials 8, 011109 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Krebber, M

    S. Krebber, M. Kopp, C. Garg, K. Kummer, J. Sichelschmidt, S. Schulz, G. Poelchen, M. Mende, A. V. Virovets, K. Warawa, M. D. Thomson, A. V. Tarasov, D. Y. Usachov, D. V. Vyalikh, H. G. Roskos, J. M¨ uller, C. Krellner, and K. Kliemt, Phys. Rev. B108, 045116 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Singh, S

    K. Singh, S. Dan, A. Ptok, T. A. Zaleski, O. Pavlosiuk, P. Wi´ sniewski, and D. Kaczorowski, Phys. Rev. B 108, 054402 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    D. Y. Usachov, S. Krebber, K. A. Bokai, A. V. Tarasov, M. Kopp, C. Garg, A. Virovets, J. M¨ uller, M. Mende, G. Poelchen, D. V. Vyalikh, C. Krellner, and K. Kliemt, Phys. Rev. B 109, 104421 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    F. Du, L. Yang, Z. Nie, N. Wu, Y. Li, S. Luo, Y. Chen, D. Su, M. Smidman, Y. Shi, C. Cao, F. Steglich, Y. Song, and H. Yuan, npj Quantum Materials 7, 65 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Cao, J.-X

    X. Cao, J.-X. Yu, P. Leng, C. Yi, X. Chen, Y. Yang, S. Liu, L. Kong, Z. Li, X. Dong, Y. Shi, M. Bibes, R. Peng, J. Zang, and F. Xiu, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023100 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    S. Luo, Y. Xu, F. Du, L. Yang, Y. Chen, C. Cao, Y. Song, and H. Yuan, Phys. Rev. B 108, 205140 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Zhang, J.-T

    H. Zhang, J.-T. Zhao, Y. Grin, X.-J. Wang, M.-B. Tang, Z.-Y. Man, H.-H. Chen, and X.-X. Yang, The Journal of Chemical Physics 129, 164713 (2008). 12

    2008

  6. [14]

    Zhang, L

    H. Zhang, L. Fang, M.-B. Tang, H.-H. Chen, X.-X. Yang, X. Guo, J.-T. Zhao, and Y. Grin, Intermetallics 18, 193 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    Singh, O

    K. Singh, O. Pavlosiuk, S. Dan, D. Kaczorowski, and P. Wi´ sniewski, Phys. Rev. B109, 125107 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    N. H. Jo, B. Kuthanazhi, Y. Wu, E. Timmons, T.-H. Kim, L. Zhou, L.-L. Wang, B. G. Ueland, A. Palasyuk, D. H. Ryan, R. J. McQueeney, K. Lee, B. Schrunk, A. A. Burkov, R. Prozorov, S. L. Bud’ko, A. Kaminski, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B 101, 140402 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    X. Chen, Z. Wang, Z. Zhou, W. Yang, Y. Liu, J.-Y. Lu, Z. Ren, G.-H. Cao, F. Tafti, S. Dong, and Z.-C. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 109, 224428 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    E. Gati, S. L. Bud’ko, L.-L. Wang, A. Valadkhani, R. Gupta, B. Kuthanazhi, L. Xiang, J. M. Wilde, A. Sap- kota, Z. Guguchia, R. Khasanov, R. Valenti, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B 104, 155124 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    A. C. Payne, A. E. Sprauve, M. M. Olmstead, S. M. Kauzlarich, J. Y. Chan, B. Reisner, and J. Lynn, Journal of Solid State Chemistry 163, 498 (2002)

    2002

  12. [20]

    Berry, N

    T. Berry, N. Varnava, D. H. Ryan, V. J. Stewart, R. Rasta, I. Heinmaa, N. Kumar, W. Schnelle, R. Bhan- dia, C. M. Pasco, N. P. Armitage, R. Stern, C. Felser, D. Vanderbilt, and T. M. McQueen, Journal of the American Chemical Society 145, 4527 (2023), pMID: 36789888

    2023

  13. [21]

    X. Chen, W. Yang, J.-Y. Lu, Z. Zhou, Z. Ren, G.-H. Cao, S. Dong, and Z.-C. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 109, L180410 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Schellenberg, M

    I. Schellenberg, M. Eul, W. Hermes, and R. P¨ ottgen, Zeitschrift f¨ ur anorganische und allgemeine Chemie636, 85 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    T.-H. Han, J. S. Helton, S. Chu, D. G. Nocera, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, C. Broholm, and Y. S. Lee, Nature 492, 406 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    V. K. Anand and D. C. Johnston, Phys. Rev. B 94, 014431 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    X. Y. Li, D. Reig-i-Plessis, P.-F. Liu, S. Wu, B.-T. Wang, A. M. Hallas, M. B. Stone, C. Broholm, and M. C. Aron- son, Phys. Rev. B 104, 10.1103/PhysRevB.104.134305 (2021)

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Goryunov, V

    Y. Goryunov, V. Fritsch, H. v L¨ ohneysen, and A. Nateprov, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 391, 012015 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Banerjee, J

    A. Banerjee, J. Yan, J. Knolle, C. A. Bridges, M. B. Stone, M. D. Lumsden, D. G. Mandrus, D. A. Tennant, R. Moessner, and S. E. Nagler, Science 356, 1055 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Dengler, J

    E. Dengler, J. Deisenhofer, H.-A. Krug von Nidda, S. Khim, J. S. Kim, K. H. Kim, F. Casper, C. Felser, and A. Loidl, Phys. Rev. B 81, 024406 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    F. A. Garcia, A. Leithe-Jasper, W. Schnelle, M. Nicklas, H. Rosner, and J. Sichelschmidt, New Journal of Physics 14, 063005 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Goryunov and A

    Y. Goryunov and A. Nateprov, Spin and Valence Fluc- tuation in Eu Compounds with CaAl 2Si2-Structure, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Strongly Correlated Electron Systems (SCES2013)

  23. [31]

    Krug von Nidda, S

    H.-A. Krug von Nidda, S. Kraus, S. Schaile, E. Dengler, N. Pascher, M. Hemmida, M. J. Eom, J. S. Kim, H. S. Jeevan, P. Gegenwart, J. Deisenhofer, and A. Loidl, Phys. Rev. B 86, 094411 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Ruehl and W

    R. Ruehl and W. Jeitschko, Mater. Res. Bull. 14, 513 (1979)

    1979

  25. [33]

    The ESR intensity IESR is deduced from the integrated ESR spectra and is a measure of the local spin susceptibility

    to obtain the parameters linewidth ( µ0∆H being a measure of the spin relaxation), resonance field ( µ0Hres, as given by the resonance condition hν = gµB · µ0Hres and being determined by the g-value and internal fields), the amplitude, and the ratio of dispersion and absorp- t...

  26. [34]

    Hemmida, H.-A

    M. Hemmida, H.-A. Krug von Nidda, A. G¨ unther, A. Loidl, A. Leithe-Jasper, W. Schnelle, H. Rosner, and J. Sichelschmidt, Phys. Rev. B 90, 205105 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Brookes, F

    N. Brookes, F. Yakhou-Harris, K. Kummer, A. Fon- dacaro, J. Cezar, D. Betto, E. Velez-Fort, A. Amorese, G. Ghiringhelli, L. Braicovich, R. Barrett, G. Berruyer, F. Cianciosi, L. Eybert, P. Marion, P. van der Lin- den, and L. Zhang, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re...

    2018

  28. [36]

    Rauch, M

    D. Rauch, M. Kraken, F. J. Litterst, S. S¨ ullow, H. Luetkens, M. Brando, T. F¨ orster, J. Sichelschmidt, A. Neubauer, C. Pfleiderer, W. J. Duncan, and F. M. Grosche, Phys. Rev. B 91, 174404 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Gruner, J

    T. Gruner, J. Wykhoff, J. Sichelschmidt, C. Krellner, C. Geibel, and F. Steglich, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter 22, 135602 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    Kubo and K

    R. Kubo and K. Tomita, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 9, 888 (1954)

    1954

  31. [39]

    Kummer, A

    K. Kummer, A. Fondacaro, E. Jimenez, E. Velez-Fort, A. Amorese, M. Aspbury, F. Yakhou-Harris, P. van der Linden, and N. B. Brookes, Journal of Synchrotron Ra- diation 23, 464 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Sichelschmidt, K

    J. Sichelschmidt, K. Kliemt, M. Hofmann-Kliemt, and C. Krellner, Phys. Rev. B 97, 214424 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Krebber and et al., Supplemental Information (2025)

    S. Krebber and et al., Supplemental Information (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    D. L. Huber, G. Alejandro, A. Caneiro, M. T. Causa, F. Prado, M. Tovar, and S. B. Oseroff, Phys. Rev. B 60, 12155 (1999)

    1999

  35. [43]

    Benner and J

    H. Benner and J. P. Boucher, Spin Dynamics in the Para- magnetic Regime: NMR and EPR in Two-Dimensional Magnets, in Magnetic Properties of Layered Transition Metal Compounds , edited by L. J. de Jongh (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1990) pp. 323–378

    1990

  36. [44]

    E. M. Br¨ uning, C. Krellner, M. Baenitz, A. Jesche, F. Steglich, and C. Geibel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 117206 (2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    Weiss, Berichte der Bunsengesellschaft f¨ ur physikalis- che Chemie 81, 779 (1977)

    A. Weiss, Berichte der Bunsengesellschaft f¨ ur physikalis- che Chemie 81, 779 (1977)

    1977

  38. [46]

    N. S. Sangeetha, S. Pakhira, Q.-P. Ding, L. Krause, H.-C. Lee, V. Smetana, A.-V. Mudring, B. B. Iversen, Y. Fu- rukawa, and D. C. Johnston, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2108724118 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Chikina, M

    A. Chikina, M. H¨ oppner, S. Seiro, K. Kummer, S. Danzenb¨ acher, S. Patil, A. Generalov, M. G¨ uttler, Y. Kucherenko, E. V. Chulkov, Y. M. Koroteev, K. Koepernik, C. Geibel, M. Shi, M. Radovic, C. Laub- schat, and D. V. Vyalikh, Nature Communications 5, 3171 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Sarkar, P

    R. Sarkar, P. Khuntia, C. Krellner, C. Geibel, F. Steglich, and M. Baenitz, Phys. Rev. B 85, 140409 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    G¨ uttler, A

    M. G¨ uttler, A. Generalov, M. M. Otrokov, K. Kummer, K. Kliemt, A. Fedorov, A. Chikina, S. Danzenb¨ acher, S. Schulz, E. V. Chulkov, Y. M. Koroteev, N. Caroca- Canales, M. Shi, M. Radovic, C. Geibel, C. Laubschat, P. Dudin, T. K. Kim, M. Hoesch, C. Krellner, and D. V. Vyalikh...

    2016

  42. [51]

    Kliemt, M

    K. Kliemt, M. Bolte, and C. Krellner, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 30, 385801 (2018). 13 VII. SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL A. Heat capacity Fig. S1 shows the field-dependent heat capacity of EuMn 2P2 at the T 3 transition. At zero field, a peak appears at 18 K which then sh...

    2018

  43. [100]

    X-ray magnetic linear dichroism measurements were performed in normal incidence, i.e

    and [001] direction in the horizontal plane. X-ray magnetic linear dichroism measurements were performed in normal incidence, i.e. with the incoming X-ray beam along the [001] direction. X-ray magnetic circular dichro- ism measurements were done in grazing incidence geom- etry...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.