Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Spin dynamics and magnetic excitations of quasi-1D spin chain Ca$_3$ZnMnO$_6$

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a quasi-1D antiferromagnetic chain, Ca$_3$ZnMnO$_6$, shows three-dimensional gapped spin waves while keeping a 1D exchange hierarchy, and may be an M-type altermagnet.

desk verdict First muSR and INS on Ca3ZnMnO6 with a plausible 3D-vs-quasi-1D story; the fitted exchange parameters need error bars and a uniqueness check before the hierarchy claim is sold. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04919 v1 pith:WQA5A675 submitted 2025-02-07 cond-mat.str-el

Suheon Lee , D. T. Adroja , Qing Zhang , Gheorghe Lucian Pascut , Kristjan Haule , A.D. Hillier , M. Telling , W. Kockelmann
show 2 more authors
Sang-Wook Cheong K.-Y. Choi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el PACS 75.10.Jm75.30.Ds75.50.Ee78.70.Nx
keywords quasi-one-dimensionalspinchainsCa3ZnMnO6inelasticneutronscatteringmuonrelaxationlinearspin-wavetheoryorbital-selectiveMottstatedouble-exchangemechanismaltermagnetism
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 argues that Ca$_3$ZnMnO$_6$, a compound built from manganese S=3/2 chains, orders antiferromagnetically at 25 K but displays spin-wave excitations with a three-dimensional gapped character, not the one-dimensional behavior its exchange topology would predict. It claims the apparent paradox is resolved by an underlying quasi-1D energy hierarchy ($J_1=0.95$ meV, $J_2=0.15$ meV, $J_3=-0.01$ meV) in which the interchain coupling $J_2$ is enhanced by zinc substitution. First-principles calculations are used to identify an orbital-selective, double-exchange-like mechanism: partially occupied Mn $e_g$ states covalently bonded to oxygen carry the exchange, while the $t_{2g}$ electrons carry the S=3/2 moment. The paper further suggests that the magnetic symmetry of Ca$_3$ZnMnO$_6$ is compatible with an M-type altermagnet.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two central objects. First is the minimal Heisenberg Hamiltonian $H = J_1 \sum_i \hat{S}_i\cdot\hat{S}_{i+1} + J_2 \sum_{\langle i,j\rangle} \hat{S}_i\cdot\hat{S}_j + J_3 \sum_{\langle i,j\rangle} \hat{S}_i\cdot\hat{S}_{j+1}$, where $J_1$ is the intrachain coupling and $J_2$, $J_3$ are two distinct interchain couplings, analysed with powder-averaged linear spin-wave theory. Second is an orbital-resolved first-principles calculation showing an orbital-selective state: the $t_{2g}$ orbitals (a singlet and an $e^{(1)}$ doublet) open Mott gaps and carry the S=3/2 moment, while the $e^{(2)}$ orbital is partially occupied and strongly hybridized with oxygen $p$ states; Hund's coupling of about 1 eV supplies the double-exchange-like exchange that enhances interchain coupling. The central quantity that resolves the dimensionality paradox is the ratio $J_2/J_1 \approx 0.16$: small enough to preserve a quasi-1D exchange hierarchy, yet large enough to open three-dimensional spin-wave channels.

What would settle it

A single-crystal neutron diffraction experiment that fixes the spin direction inside the $ab$-plane, combined with single-crystal inelastic neutron scattering that resolves the spin-wave branches along and between chains, would settle the claim: if the magnetic space group is not P$\bar{1}$ or C2$'$/c$'$, or if the measured dispersion requires couplings materially different from $J_1=0.95$ meV, $J_2=0.15$ meV, and $J_3=-0.01$ meV, the quasi-1D hierarchy and the altermagnetic assignment would be ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Ca$_3$ZnMnO$_6$ exhibits 3D gapped magnetic excitations even though its exchange couplings form a quasi-1D hierarchy, and that this combination is natural once the exchange is understood through an orbital-selective, double-exchange-like channel rather than conventional superexchange. Linear spin-wave fits to powder-averaged inelastic neutron scattering yield $J_1=0.95$ meV, $J_2=0.15$ meV, and $J_3=-0.01$ meV, together with a single-ion anisotropy of $-1.5$ $\mu$eV along the $a$-axis, reproducing the observed dispersion up to about 5 meV and the spin gap of roughly 0.5 meV. The theoretical calculations show that Mn is best described as a mixture of $d^3$, $d^4$, and $d^5$ configurations, with only the $t_{2g}$ electrons contributing to the local moment while the $e_g$ electrons are partially occupied and covalently bonded to oxygen; Hund's coupling connects the two and makes a double-exchange-like mechanism dominate. On this basis the authors propose a magnetic structure described by the P$\bar{1}$ or C2$'$/c$'$ magnetic space groups and identify the material as a candidate M-type altermagnet, defined here as a collinear antiferromagnet whose symmetry permits spin-split bands and a small net moment.

Load-bearing premise

The entire argument rests on the assumption that the fitted three-parameter Heisenberg model plus one tiny anisotropy term is the unique explanation of a powder-averaged neutron spectrum measured at roughly 0.35 meV resolution; no error bars or uniqueness check are provided, so other parameter sets or extra terms could change the inferred quasi-1D hierarchy and the altermagnetic model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The material becomes a concrete S=3/2 spin-chain testbed where the ratio $J_2/J_1\approx 0.16$ is large enough to produce 3D spin-wave physics while the exchange hierarchy remains quasi-1D.
  • The small spin gap of about 0.5 meV that closes at $T_N=25$ K means the low-energy magnetic response is tunable by temperature and magnetic field, and should be visible in future single-crystal neutron experiments.
  • If the magnetic symmetry is P$\bar{1}$ or C2$'$/c$'$, Ca$_3$ZnMnO$_6$ would be an M-type altermagnet, joining a small group of insulating candidates in which altermagnetic order coexists with the small net moment seen in magnetization.
  • The orbital-selective double-exchange-like mechanism gives a design rule: substituting nonmagnetic ions into the B site of A$_3$BB'O$_6$ chains can enhance interchain coupling and turn a 1D magnet into a 3D magnet.
  • The paper's DFT-derived local moment of 3.91 $\mu_B$ and Curie-Weiss temperature of about 21 K provide a quantitative electronic-structure baseline that connects the fitted exchange parameters to the measured thermodynamic response.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves the spin direction within the $ab$-plane undetermined; a single-crystal neutron experiment could test the proposed P$\bar{1}$/C2$'$/c$'$ model and would also provide the strongest check on the altermagnetic classification.
  • If the altermagnetic symmetry is confirmed, spin-split magnon or transport measurements at energies above the 0.5 meV gap might reveal momentum-dependent spin splitting, a consequence the paper does not pursue.
  • The orbital-selective mechanism suggests that replacing Zn with other closed-shell ions should change $J_2$ while leaving $J_1$ roughly fixed, giving a tunable dimensionality that could be checked by susceptibility and neutron measurements.
  • Because the powder-averaged fit could admit other parameter sets, a natural next step is a higher-resolution single-crystal inelastic neutron experiment that resolves the individual spin-wave branches rather than their powder average.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a combined experimental and theoretical study of the quasi-1D spin-chain compound Ca3ZnMnO6. Magnetization and specific-heat measurements show an antiferromagnetic transition at about 25 K. Zero-field muSR indicates persistent spin dynamics below TN. Neutron powder diffraction establishes a commensurate k=0 magnetic structure with Mn moments in the ab-plane. Powder inelastic neutron scattering on MARI and IRIS shows dispersive excitations extending to about 5 meV with a spin gap near 0.5 meV. The authors fit a J1-J2-J3 Heisenberg model plus a small single-ion anisotropy to the powder-averaged INS data using linear spin-wave theory, obtaining J1=0.95 meV, J2=0.15 meV, J3=-0.01 meV, and D=-1.5 micro-eV, and conclude that the exchange hierarchy is quasi-1D despite three-dimensional excitation features. DFT+eDMFT calculations suggest an orbital-selective state with a double-exchange-like mechanism, and the authors propose M-type altermagnetism as a possibility.

Significance. If the quasi-1D hierarchy is correct, the paper provides a striking counterexample to the naive expectation that dispersive 3D spin waves imply comparable exchange couplings in all directions. The experimental data set is rich and internally consistent, and the DFT+eDMFT calculation is detailed, with explicit parameters (U=10 eV, JH=1 eV, RKmax=7.0, 1024 k-points) that make the numerical work reproducible. The paper also gives a clear account of the data analysis using established packages (FullProf, Mantid, SpinW), which is commendable. The altermagnet suggestion is explicitly framed as a hypothesis. However, the central quantitative conclusion about the exchange hierarchy is not yet established because the optimized couplings are fitted to the same powder-averaged spectrum that they are then used to explain, and no uncertainty or uniqueness analysis is presented.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III.D, Eq. (2), Figs. 7(e)-7(f)] The optimized exchange parameters J1=0.95 meV, J2=0.15 meV, and J3=-0.01 meV are obtained by a fit to the powder-averaged INS spectrum, and the same values are then used to affirm an underlying quasi-1D energy hierarchy. The manuscript reports no error bars, covariance matrix, or uniqueness analysis for this three-parameter fit, and no comparison is made with alternative parameter sets (for example, models with larger J2/J1 or with additional further-neighbor or Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya terms). Powder averaging compresses the directional information needed to separate intrachain from interchain couplings, so a wide range of parameter sets may reproduce the observed S(Q,E) within the 0.35 meV resolution. The authors should scan the J2/J1 and J3/J1 parameter space, report the confidence region or chi-squared landscape, and test at least one alternative model to demonstrate that the quasi-1D hierarchy is uniquely determined by the data.
  2. [Section III.D, Fig. 8] The observed spin gap of about 0.5 meV is claimed to be reproduced by adding a single-ion anisotropy term with D=-1.5 micro-eV along the a-axis. For S=3/2 and exchange J1=0.95 meV, such a tiny anisotropy is expected to produce a magnon gap of order 0.1 meV, not 0.5 meV; the paper does not show the computed dispersion or the dependence of the gap on D. The authors should present the calculated spin-wave spectrum with the fitted D, including the gap value, and clarify the sign convention and the relation between the chosen anisotropy axis and the ab-plane moment direction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II / Section III.D] The experimental section states that the MARI spectrometer provides an FWHM energy resolution of about 0.5 meV for Ei=12.8 meV, while the data analysis section cites 0.35 meV for the same configuration; please correct this inconsistency.
  2. [Sections III.A and V] The discussion claims an absence of a broad maximum in Cm at high temperature, but Section III.A describes a shoulder feature in Cm extending to 60 K and visible in Fig. 2(c); please reconcile these statements.
  3. [Fig. 7] The label 'optimized DFT values' is misleading because the final exchange constants are fits to the INS data rather than direct DFT outputs; consider renaming them to 'fitted exchange parameters'.
  4. [Section IV] The choice U=10 eV and JH=1 eV is stated to be well established in the literature, but no sensitivity study is provided; a brief justification or a test of nearby values would strengthen the orbital-selectivity claim.
  5. [Section V and references] There is a typo 'altermangeitsm' that should read 'altermagnetism', and reference [70] lists the author as 'F.-T. Hunag' rather than 'Huang'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The quasi-1D hierarchy and the spin gap are 'confirmed' using the very parameters fitted to the same INS data; the confirmation reduces to the fit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract and Sec. III.D (Eq. 2, Fig. 7)]
    "The abstract states: 'spin-wave dispersion analysis confirms an underlying quasi-1D energy hierarchy.' In Sec. III.D the paper says: 'we optimize the exchange parameters obtained from the DFT calculations to J1=0.95 meV, J2=0.15 meV, and J3=-0.01 meV. With the optimized coupling constants, the magnetic excitations are well captured by the linear spin-wave theory'."

    The 'confirmed' quasi-1D hierarchy is simply the ordering of the fitted parameters J1 >> J2, J3, which were optimized to reproduce the same powder-averaged INS spectrum shown in Fig. 7. No independent constraint—single-crystal dispersion, error bars, covariance analysis, or comparison against alternative parameter sets—is used to test whether the hierarchy is uniquely forced. Thus the claimed confirmation is a restatement of the fit by construction, rather than an independent derivation. The DFT+eDMFT discussion provides a qualitative orbital-selective double-exchange mechanism, but it does not quantitatively validate these J values.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III.D, Fig. 8(d)]
    "The observed spin gap is well reproduced by introducing in the Hamiltonian a term corresponding to the single-ion anisotropy with the value of −1.5 µeV along the a-axis [Fig. 8(d)]."

    The single-ion anisotropy is not independently predicted; its value is chosen so that the calculated gap matches the measured ~0.5 meV gap. The statement that the model 'well reproduces' the gap is therefore a tautological description of the fit target. The later attribution of the gap to crystal-field effects and spin-orbit coupling is a plausible physical interpretation, but it is not supported by an independent confirmation—the fitted term was inserted precisely to produce the observed gap.

full rationale

The paper's central experimental content—3D gapped magnetic excitations, NPD magnetic structure, µSR persistent dynamics, and the TN=25 K transition—is genuinely new and independent. The DFT+eDMFT first-principles calculation is also independent: it predicts an orbital-selective state, a local moment of 3.91 µB, and a double-exchange-like mechanism, and it is validated against the measured susceptibility. No load-bearing circularity arises from self-citations: the DFT+eDMFT code is machine-implemented and benchmarked on other manganites, and the altermagnet classification is explicitly speculative ("we hypothesize", "could be a potential candidate"). However, the specific claim that the spin-wave analysis 'confirms an underlying quasi-1D energy hierarchy' is circular in a narrower sense: the exchange constants J1, J2, J3 were optimized to the powder-averaged INS data, and the hierarchy is read off those same fitted values. Similarly, the single-ion anisotropy D=-1.5 µeV is fit to the observed gap and then described as reproducing it. Because the paper provides no uniqueness analysis, error bars, or alternative-model comparison for the powder-averaged fit, the fit-to-confirmation loop is unchecked. The independent conventional DFT does yield a similar hierarchy (J1=0.716, J2=0.114, J3=-0.033 meV), which mitigates but does not remove the circularity of presenting the fitted hierarchy as an empirical confirmation. Overall, the circularity is partial, not total, because the experimental observations and the DFT+eDMFT mechanism retain independent content; hence the score is 6 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The ledger shows that the central spin-model conclusion relies on three exchange constants and one anisotropy term that are fit to the same neutron data they are used to validate, plus assumptions about the adequacy of the Heisenberg model, linear spin-wave theory, the NPD-derived magnetic structure, and the DFT+eDMFT methodology. This is a moderate circularity burden: the hierarchy is inferred from a fitted Hamiltonian, not independently derived.

free parameters (7)
  • J1 (optimized intrachain exchange) = 0.95 meV
    Optimized to match the powder-averaged INS spectrum in Fig. 7; carries no error bars or uniqueness check.
  • J2 (optimized interchain exchange) = 0.15 meV
    Optimized to match the INS spectrum; its non-negligible value is central to the claimed 3D character.
  • J3 (optimized interchain exchange) = -0.01 meV
    Optimized to match the INS spectrum; small and negative in the fitted set.
  • Single-ion anisotropy D = -1.5 micro-eV along the a-axis
    Introduced in the SpinW Hamiltonian to reproduce the 0.5 meV spin gap seen on IRIS (Fig. 8(d)).
  • Lattice specific-heat parameters CD, theta_D, CE, theta_E = CD=6.1(9), theta_D=379(11) K, CE=5.5(7), theta_E=790(19) K
    Fitted to C(T) above 50 K to extract Cm; affects the reported shoulder and entropy analysis but not the core spin-wave result.
  • eDMFT Coulomb U = 10 eV
    Standard literature value for insulating transition-metal oxides; not fitted here but controls the orbital-selective calculation.
  • eDMFT Hund coupling JH = 1 eV
    Standard literature value; controls the strength of the double-exchange-like coupling argument.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Heisenberg Hamiltonian with intrachain J1 and interchain J2, J3 captures the low-energy spin dynamics of Ca3ZnMnO6.
    Used in Sec. III.D, Eq. (2); assumes no significant Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya or further-neighbor terms beyond the fitted set.
  • domain assumption Linear spin-wave theory is adequate for S=3/2 Mn4+ in the ordered state at 5 K.
    The SpinW calculations assume an ordered ground state and small quantum fluctuations; no correction for 1D fluctuation effects is applied.
  • domain assumption The NPD-determined magnetic structure with k=0, R-3 symmetry, and moments in the ab-plane is correct.
    Sec. III.C; powder averaging leaves the in-plane orientation undetermined, and the altermagnet model adds a small c-axis FM component not resolved by NPD.
  • domain assumption DFT+eDMFT with GGA-PBE and U=10 eV, JH=1 eV accurately captures the orbital-selective electronic structure and exchange mechanism.
    Sec. IV; parameters are standard for insulating transition-metal oxides but are not validated against the measured spin-wave spectrum directly.
  • standard math The muSR exchange-narrowing relation lambda = 2 Delta^2/nu with z=2 is valid for estimating the exchange energy scale.
    Sec. III.B; assumes a Gaussian internal field distribution and fast fluctuations, a standard muSR analysis framework.
  • domain assumption The proposed magnetic structure with P-1 or C2'/c' symmetry is consistent with M-type altermagnetism.
    Sec. V and Fig. 14; the model is inferred from symmetry and bulk magnetization, and the paper states single-crystal neutron diffraction is required to prove it.
invented entities (1)
  • Small ferromagnetic component along the c-axis in the proposed magnetic structure
    purpose: Explains the low-field hysteresis in M(H) and makes the magnetic space group compatible with M-type altermagnetism.
    The component is inferred from macroscopic magnetization hysteresis and symmetry arguments, not resolved by powder neutron diffraction; the paper itself calls for single-crystal neutron diffraction to confirm the model (Sec. V, Fig. 14).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin dynamics and magnetic excitations of quasi-1D spin chain Ca$_3$ZnMnO$_6$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WQA5A675

@misc{pith2026250204919,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin dynamics and magnetic excitations of quasi-1D spin chain Ca$_3$ZnMnO$_6$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WQA5A675}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04919}
}
abstract

To reveal the structure-property relationship in quasi-one-dimensional (1D) spin-chain system Ca$_3$ZnMnO$_6$, we present comprehensive results, combining basic physical characterizations such as muon spin relaxation/rotation ($\mu$SR), neutron powder diffraction (NPD), inelastic neutron scattering (INS), and theoretical calculations. Ca$_3$ZnMnO$_6$ features a dominant intrachain coupling $J_1$ and two distinct interchain interactions $J_2$ and $J_3$, and it undergoes antiferromagnetic ordering below $T_{\mathrm{N}}=25$~K, as revealed by dc magnetic susceptibility and specific-heat measurements. Zero-field $\mu$SR shows persistent spin dynamics below $T_{\mathrm{N}}$, suggesting unconventional magnetic excitations in the ordered state. NPD results indicate a commensurate magnetic ground state with a propagation vector $\mathbf{k}=0$, where the Mn spins lie in the $ab$-plane. INS spectra display dispersive magnetic excitations extending up to about 5~meV, with an energy gap smaller than 0.5~meV. Notably, these spectra exhibit three-dimensional (3D) gapped features rather than the expected 1D behavior, yet spin-wave dispersion analysis confirms an underlying quasi-1D energy hierarchy. We discuss this apparent paradox of 3D-like magnetic excitations in a quasi-1D system in terms of the energy hierarchy modified by nonmagnetic-ion substitution and finite-temperature first-principles calculations. We also suggest that Ca$_3$ZnMnO$_6$ could be a potential candidate for an M-type altermagnet.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04919 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) displays the temperature dependence of the dc magnetic susceptibility measured in H = 1 kOe. With decreasing temperature, χ(T) exhibits a broad maximum at T = 30 K, followed by an antiferromag￾netic transition at TN = 25 K. The Curie-Weiss fits to the data above 150 K provide the Curie constant C = 1.96(4) emu·K·mol−1 ·Oe−1 and the Weiss tempera￾ture ΘCW = −41(5) K. The effective magnetic moment was evaluated to… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (d). Although the bandwidth of the calculated spin waves at around 4 meV is slightly narrower than the data [see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.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. Large magnon dichroism and other optical properties of hexagonal ferrite h-Lu0.6Sc0.4FeO3 with altermagnetic A2 spin ordering

    cond-mat.other 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Zero-field circular and vortex-beam dichroism of the 0.85 THz magnon doublet is reported in h-Lu0.6Sc0.4FeO3 and interpreted as evidence for altermagnetic A2 ordering.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M. Hase, I. Terasaki, and K. Uchinokura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3651 (1993)

    work page 1993

  2. [2]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 1358 (1980)

    work page 1980

  3. [3]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. B 25, 4925(R) (1982)

    work page 1982

  4. [4]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett., 50, 1153 (1985)

    work page 1985

  5. [5]

    R¨ uegg, N

    Ch. R¨ uegg, N. Cavadini, A. Furrer, H.-U. G¨ udel, K. Kr¨ amer, H. Mutka, A. Wildes, K. Habicht and P. Vorder- wisch, Nature 423, 62 (2003)

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    B. Lake, A. M. Tsvelik, S. Notbohm, D. A. Tennant, T. G. Perring, M. Reehuis, C. Sekar, G. Krabbes and B. B¨ uchner, Nat. Phys.6, 50 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    H. A. Bethe, Z. Phys. 71, 205 (1931)

    1931

  8. [8]

    G´ omez-Santos, Phys

    G. G´ omez-Santos, Phys. Rev. B41, 6788 (1990)

    work page 1990

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Uchiyama, Y

    Y. Uchiyama, Y. Sasago, I. Tsukada, K. Uchinokura, A. Zheludev, T. Hayashi, N. Miura, and P. B¨ oni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 632 (1999)

    1999

  2. [10]

    Nguyen and H.-C

    T. Nguyen and H.-C. zur Loye, J. Solid State Chem. 117, 300 (1995)

    1995

  3. [11]

    Flahaut, S

    D. Flahaut, S. Hebert, A. Maignan, V. Hardy, C. Martin, M. Hervieu, M. Costes, B. Raquet, and J. M. Broto, Eur. Phys. J. B 35, 317 (2003)

    2003

  4. [12]

    H. Wu, M. W. Haverkort, Z. Hu, D. I. Khomskii, and L. H. Tjeng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 186401 (2005)

    2005

  5. [13]

    Mohapatra, K

    N. Mohapatra, K. K. Iyer, S. Rayaprol, and E. V. Sam- pathkumaran, Phys. Rev. B 75, 214422 (2007

    2007

  6. [14]

    Agrestini, L

    S. Agrestini, L. C. Chapon, A. Daoud-Aladine, J. Schefer, A. Gukasov, C. Mazzoli, M. R. Lees, and O. A. Petrenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 097207 (2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    Sarkar, S

    S. Sarkar, S. Kanungo, and T. Saha-Dasgupta,Phys. Rev. B 82, 235122 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    A. D. Hillier, D. T. Adroja, W. Kockelmann, L. C. Chapon, S. Rayaprol, P. Manuel, H. Michor, and E. V. Sampathkumaran, Phys. Rev. B 83, 024414 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    W. G. Yin, X. Liu, A. M. Tsvelik, M. P. M. Dean, M. H. Upton, J. Kim, D. Casa, A. Said, T. Gog, T. F. Qi, G. Cao, and J. P. Hill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 057202 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    A. Jain, P. Y. Portnichenko, H. Jang, G. Jackeli, G. Friemel, A. Ivanov, A. Piovano, S. M. Yusuf, B. Keimer, and D. S. Inosov, Phys. Rev. B 88, 224403 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Lefrancois, L

    E. Lefrancois, L. C. Chapon, V. Simonet, P. Lejay, D. Khalyavin, S. Rayaprol, E. V. Sampathkumaran, R. Bal- lou, and D. T. Adroja, Physical Review B 90, 014408 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Ou and H

    X. Ou and H. Wu, Scientific reports 4, 4609 (2014)

    2014

  13. [22]

    P. A. McClarty, A. D. Hillier, D. T. Adroja, D. D. Khalyavin, S. Rayaprol, P. Manuel, W. Kockelmann, and E. V. Sampathkumaran, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 89, 064703 (2020). 14

    2020

  14. [23]

    Nguyen, P

    T.N. Nguyen, P. A. Lee, and H.-C. zur Loye, Science271, 489 (1995)

    1995

  15. [24]

    Kawasaki, M

    S. Kawasaki, M. Takano, and T. Inami, J. Solid State Chem. 145, 302 (1999)

    1999

  16. [25]

    M. Y. Ruan, Z. W. Ouyang, Y. M. Guo, J. J. Cheng, Y. C. Sun, Z. C. Xia, G. H. Rao, S. Okubo and H. Ohta, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 26, 236001 (2014)

    2014

  17. [26]

    Kitazawa and K

    A. Kitazawa and K. Okamoto, Phys. Rev. B 62, 940 (2000)

    2000

  18. [27]

    Chakraborty, S

    J. Chakraborty, S. Samanta, B. R. K. Nanda, and I. Das- gupta, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 28, 375501 (2016)

    2016

  19. [28]

    Arnold, J

    O. Arnold, J. C. Bilheux, J. M. Borreguero, A. Buts, S. I. Campbell, L. Chapon, M. Doucet, N. Draper, R. Ferraz Leal, M. A. Gigg, et al ., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 764, 156 (2014)

    2014

  20. [29]

    Rodr ´ ıguez-Carvajal, Physica B: Condensed Matter 192, 55 (1993)

    J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Carvajal, Physica B: Condensed Matter 192, 55 (1993)

    1993

  21. [30]

    Toth and B

    S. Toth and B. Lake, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 27, 166002 (2015)

    2015

  22. [31]

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

    1974

  23. [32]

    Yaouanc and P

    A. Yaouanc and P. Dalmas de R´ eotier, Muon Spin Ro- tation, Relaxation, and Resonance: Applications to Con- densed Matter (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011)

    2011

  24. [33]

    Mendels, F

    P. Mendels, F. Bert, M. A. de Vries, A. Olariu, A. Har- rison, F. Duc, J. C. Trombe, J. S. Lord, A. Amato, and C. Baines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 077204 (2007)

    2007

  25. [34]

    S. R. Dunsiger, A. A. Aczel, C. Arguello, H. Dabkowska, A. Dabkowski, M.-H. Du, T. Goko, B. Javanparast, T. Lin, F. L. Ning, H. M. L. Noad, D. J. Singh, T. J. Williams, Y. J. Uemura, M. J. P. Gingras, and G. M. Luke Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 207207 (2011)

    2011

  26. [35]

    Yaouanc, P

    A. Yaouanc, P. Dalmas de R´ eotier, A. Bertin, C. Marin, E. Lhotel, A. Amato, and C. Baines, Phys. Rev. B 91, 104427 (2015)

    2015

  27. [36]

    J. Xu, C. Balz, C. Baines, H. Luetkens, and B. Lake, Phys. Rev. B 94, 064425 (2016)

    2016

  28. [37]

    Dalmas de R´ eotier, C

    P. Dalmas de R´ eotier, C. Marin, A. Yaouanc, C. Ritter, A. Maisuradze, B. Roessli, A. Bertin, P. J. Baker, and A. Amato, Phys. Rev. B 96, 134403 (2017)

    2017

  29. [38]

    Abragam, and B

    A. Abragam, and B. Bleaney, Electron Paramagnetic Resonance of Transition Ions (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1970)

    1970

  30. [39]

    Joseph A. M. Paddison, Stefano Agrestini, Martin R. Lees, Catherine L. Fleck, Pascale P. Deen, Andrew L. Goodwin, J. Ross Stewart, and Oleg A. Petrenko, Spin correlations in Ca 3Co2O6: Polarized-neutron diffraction and Monte Carlo study, Phys. Rev. B 90, 014411 (2014)

    2014

  31. [40]

    Komarek, Antoine Maignan, Maurits W

    Brett Leedahl, Martin Sundermann, Andrea Amorese, Andrea Severing, Hlynur Gretarsson, Lunyong Zhang, Alexander C. Komarek, Antoine Maignan, Maurits W. Haverkort, Liu Hao Tjeng, Origin of Ising magnetism in Ca3Co2O6 unveiled by orbital imaging, Nat. Commun. 10, 5447 (2019)

    2019

  32. [41]

    R. Nath, A. A. Tsirlin, H. Rosner, and C. Geibel, Phys. Rev. B 78, 064422 (2008)

    2008

  33. [42]

    Ahmed, A

    N. Ahmed, A. A. Tsirlin, and R. Nath, Phys. Rev. B 91, 214413 (2015)

    2015

  34. [43]

    S. Toth, W. Wu, D. T. Adroja, S. Rayaprol, and E. V. Sampathkumaran, Phys. Rev. B 93, 174422 (2016)

    2016

  35. [44]

    Haule, DMFT code (2007–2024), http://hauleweb.rutgers.edu/tutorials/ where for the DFT part we are using the WIEN2K code: P

    K. Haule, DMFT code (2007–2024), http://hauleweb.rutgers.edu/tutorials/ where for the DFT part we are using the WIEN2K code: P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, G. K. H. Madsen, D. Kvasnicka, J. Luitz, R. Laskowski, F. Tran, and L. D. Marks, WIEN2K, An Augmented Plane Wave + Local Orbitals ...

    2007

  36. [45]

    Haule, J

    K. Haule, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 87, 041005 (2018)

    2018

  37. [46]

    Haule, C.-H

    K. Haule, C.-H. Yee, and K. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 81, 195107 (2010)

    2010

  38. [47]

    Arpita Paul and Turan Birol, Annual Review of Materials Research 49, 31 (2019)

    2019

  39. [48]

    Haule and G

    K. Haule and G. L. Pascut, Phys. Rev. B 94, 195146 (2016)

    2016

  40. [49]

    Haule and G

    K. Haule and G. L. Pascut, Sci. Rep. 7, 10375 (2017)

    2017

  41. [50]

    T. N. Stanislavchuk, G. L. Pascut, A. P. Litvinchuk, Z. Liu, S. Choi, M. J. Gutmann, B. Gao, K. Haule, V. Kiryukhin, S.-W. Cheong, and A. A. Sirenko, Phys. Rev. B 102, 115139 (2020)

    2020

  42. [51]

    Ko¸ cer, Kristjan Haule, G

    Can P. Ko¸ cer, Kristjan Haule, G. Lucian Pascut, and Bartomeu Monserrat, Phys. Rev. B 102, 245104 (2020)

    2020

  43. [52]

    K. Park, G. L. Pascut, G. Khanal, M. O. Yokosuk, Xi- anghan Xu, Bin Gao, M. J. Gutmann, A. P. Litvinchuk, V. Kiryukhin, S. -W. Cheong, D. Vanderbilt, K. Haule, and J. L. Musfeldt, Phys. Rev. B 104, 195143 (2021)

    2021

  44. [53]

    Evgenii V Sterkhov, Nikolay M Chtchelkatchev, Elena V Mostovshchikova, Roman E Ryltsev, Sergey A Uporov, Gheorghe L Pascut, Andrey V Fetisov, Svetlana G Titova, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 892, 162034 (2022)

    2022

  45. [54]

    Gheorghe Lucian Pascut and Kristjan Haule, Phys. Rev. B 107, 045147 (2023)

    2023

  46. [55]

    Yamada, N

    S. Yamada, N. Abe, H. Sagayama, K. Ogawa, T. Ya- magami, and T. Arima, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 126602 (2019)

    2019

  47. [56]

    Gheorghe Lucian Pascut, Lucian Cosovanu, Kristjan Haule, Khandker F Quader, Communications Physics 6, 45 (2023)

    2023

  48. [57]

    Sun-Woo Kim, Kristjan Haule, Gheorghe Lucian Pascut, Bartomeu Monserrat, Materials Horizons - Advance Ar- ticle 11, 5622-5630 (2024)

    2024

  49. [58]

    Anisimov, I

    V. Anisimov, I. Nekrasov, and D. E. Kondakov, Eur. Phys. J. B 25, 191 (2002)

    2002

  50. [59]

    de’Medici, A

    L. de’Medici, A. Georges, and S. Biermann, Phys. Rev. B 72, 205124 (2005)

    2005

  51. [60]

    Georges, L

    A. Georges, L. d. Medici, and J. Mravlje, Annu. Rev. Condens.Matter Phys. 4, 137 (2013)

    2013

  52. [61]

    Yazhong Wang, Gheorghe L Pascut, Bin Gao, Trevor A Tyson, Kristjan Haule, Valery Kiryukhin, Sang-Wook Cheong, Scientific reports 5, 12268 (2015)

    2015

  53. [62]

    Poonam Yadav, Suheon Lee, G. L. Pascut, Jaewook Kim, Matthias J. Gutmann, Xianghan Xu, Bin Gao, Sang- Wook Cheong, Valery Kiryukhin, and Sungkyun Choi, Phys. Rev. Research 5, 033099 (2023)

    2023

  54. [63]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  55. [64]

    Haule, Phys

    K. Haule, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 196403 (2015)

    2015

  56. [65]

    Haule, Phys

    K. Haule, Phys. Rev. B 75, 155113 (2007)

    2007

  57. [66]

    Rabe, and David Vanderbilt, Phys

    Subhasish Mandal, Kristjan Haule, Karin M. Rabe, and David Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B 100, 245109 (2019)

    2019

  58. [67]

    Subhasish Mandal, Kristjan Haule, Karin M Rabe, David Vanderbilt, npj Comput Mater 5, 115 (2019)

    2019

  59. [68]

    Asish K Kundu, Polina M Sheverdyaeva, Paolo Moras, Krishnakumar SR Menon, Subhasish Mandal, Phys. Rev. B 109, 195111 (2024). 15

    2024

  60. [69]

    Hallas, Communica- tions Physics 5, 95 (2022)

    Sam Mugiraneza and Alannah M. Hallas, Communica- tions Physics 5, 95 (2022)

    2022

  61. [70]

    Cheong F.-T

    S.-W. Cheong F.-T. Hunag, Altermagnetism with non- collinear spins. npj Quantum Mater. 9, 13 (2024)

    2024

  62. [71]

    Cheong F.-T

    S.-W. Cheong F.-T. Hunag, Altermagnetism Classifica- tion. arXiv:2409.20456 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Radaelli, Tensorial approach to altermagnetism

    Paolo G. Radaelli, Tensorial approach to altermagnetism. Phys. Rev. B 110, 214428 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.