Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Quasi-Two-Dimensional Quantum Antiferromagnetism in the Distorted Honeycomb Compound KCuIn(PO4)2

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read KCuIn(PO4)2 is a quasi-2D quantum antiferromagnet of coupled spin chains, with its second-neighbor exchange dominating the nearest-neighbor one by a factor of ~4.

desk verdict New compound-specific data and a plausible J2≫J1 hierarchy, but the QMC scale is inconsistent with the fitted exchange and the saturation field looks off by ~6x. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21868 v1 pith:2NRUWISG submitted 2026-07-23 cond-mat.str-el

S. Gayen , S. S. Ali , V. K. Singh , B. Koteswararao , S. K. Panda This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords KCuIn(PO4)2distortedhoneycomblatticequantumantiferromagnetspin-1/2chainsHeisenbergmodelmagneticsusceptibilityMonteCarloexchangehierarchy
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

This paper identifies the compound KCuIn(PO4)2 as a quasi-two-dimensional quantum antiferromagnet whose magnetism is carried by weakly coupled spin-1/2 chains. Combining magnetization measurements, first-principles electronic-structure calculations, and quantum Monte Carlo simulations, the authors argue that the second-nearest-neighbor exchange (J2) is about four times stronger than the nearest-neighbor exchange (J1) within the distorted honeycomb copper layers, with interlayer coupling negligible. A minimal Heisenberg model with J2 = 30 K and J1 = 8 K reproduces the measured temperature-dependent susceptibility and field-dependent magnetization, including the broad susceptibility maximum near 18 K and the low-temperature approach to saturation. If correct, this provides a concrete new material for studying low-dimensional quantum spin physics, where a long superexchange pathway through phosphate groups beats a short direct Cu–O–Cu bond.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by an effective spin-1/2 Heisenberg Hamiltonian on the distorted honeycomb lattice, H = -J1 Σ S_i·S_j - J2 Σ S_i·S_j - K Σ (S^z_i)^2, with the exchange couplings J2 > J1 extracted from first-principles magnetic-force-theorem calculations. The reasoning has three load-bearing components: the exchange hierarchy J2/J1 ≈ 4.8 computed ab initio, the Wannier-based hopping analysis that explains this hierarchy through t2 > t1, and the quantum Monte Carlo solution of the model that matches the measured χ(T) and M(H) with J2 = 30 K, J1 = 8 K.

What would settle it

Measure the magnetic susceptibility of a single crystal (or a much purer polycrystal) of KCuIn(PO4)2 and compare with the model without impurity correction: if the broad maximum shifts away from 18 K or the low-temperature upturn is intrinsic, the two-coupling picture collapses. Alternatively, inelastic neutron scattering should reveal a gapless spinon continuum characteristic of isolated spin chains; the absence of such a continuum would rule out the spin-chain description.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that KCuIn(PO4)2 realizes an S = 1/2 distorted-honeycomb magnetic lattice in which the next-nearest-neighbor antiferromagnetic exchange J2 ≈ 4.35 meV dominates the nearest-neighbor exchange J1 ≈ 0.90 meV, a ratio of roughly 4.8. The dominance arises not from proximity but from a favorable Cu–O–P–O–Cu superexchange pathway that produces a larger effective hopping (t2 ≈ 73 meV) than the direct Cu–O–Cu path (t1 ≈ 39 meV). An effective spin-1/2 Heisenberg Hamiltonian with J2 = 30 K and J1 = 8 K, solved by quantum Monte Carlo, quantitatively reproduces the experimental susceptibility and magnetization, establishing the system as a quasi-2D antiferromagnet of coupled spin chai

Load-bearing premise

The measured intrinsic susceptibility is obtained by subtracting a fitted Curie-like impurity term from the powder data with unreported parameters; if that subtraction is wrong, the fitted couplings J2 = 30 K and J1 = 8 K lose their quantitative footing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • KCuIn(PO4)2 becomes a candidate platform for exploring nearly isolated spin-1/2 chain physics within a two-dimensional lattice.
  • The exchange ratio J2/J1 may be tunable via strain or chemical substitution, potentially driving the system between chain-like and Néel-ordered regimes.
  • The quantitative match validates the exchange hierarchy without needing neutron scattering data, offering a thermodynamic fingerprint for similar materials.
  • The model predicts field-induced saturation near 5 T at very low temperatures, a distinct signature testable by high-field magnetization measurements.
  • The dominance of a long superexchange path over a short one suggests that similar hierarchies may hide in other phosphate-based layered magnets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the model is correct, the low-temperature magnetization should show a characteristic spin-chain saturation kink near 5 T at 0.2 K; high-field measurements on cleaner samples could verify this specific prediction.
  • The paper leaves the impurity-subtraction parameters unspecified; re-analyzing the raw data with different impurity treatments would reveal whether the 18 K peak and the fitted couplings are robust.
  • A single-crystal susceptibility measurement would be a stricter test, since the current comparison is powder-averaged against a 2D model with easy-axis anisotropy.
  • The t2/t1 versus J2/J1 relationship suggests a design rule: in phosphate-bridged copper lattices, long Cu–O–P–O–Cu paths can dominate over short Cu–O–Cu bonds when the latter is near 90°, offering a route to engineer spin-chain magnets.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a combined experimental and theoretical study of the distorted honeycomb compound KCuIn(PO4)2. Magnetization measurements on polycrystalline samples show a broad susceptibility maximum near 18 K and a nearly linear M(H) at 2 K. DFT+U calculations yield an indirect-gap insulator with S=1/2 Cu moments; the magnetic force theorem gives J1=-0.90 meV, J2=-4.35 meV, J3=-0.15 meV, i.e., J2≈5 J1, corroborated by Wannier hoppings (t2²/t1²=3.6). Guided by these ratios, the authors simulate an effective spin-1/2 Heisenberg model with single-ion anisotropy via quantum Monte Carlo (QMC). They state that J2=30 K and J1=8 K reproduce the measured susceptibility and that the QMC M(H) agrees with experiment, including saturation at ≈5 T at 0.2 K. The paper concludes that KCuIn(PO4)2 is a quasi-2D quantum antiferromagnet composed of coupled spin chains.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this would add a useful new example of an S=1/2 distorted-honeycomb magnet with dominant next-nearest-neighbor exchange, and the DFT-to-model connection would be of interest. The paper's strengths include U-robustness checks of the magnetic ground state, a Wannier-based rationalization of the J2/J1 hierarchy, phonon stability analysis, and explicit acknowledgement of missing neutron data and band-gap verification. However, the central quantitative validation is weakened by two load-bearing issues: (i) the QMC parameters are fitted to the very susceptibility they are said to reproduce, with the impurity-subtraction parameters unreported; and (ii) the reported QMC saturation field (≈5 T) is an order of magnitude smaller than the value expected for J2=30 K (≈45 T for an S=1/2 chain), indicating an error in the Zeeman term or in the stated exchange scale. These need to be resolved before the claims of quantitative agreement and ab initio consistency can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [III.B.4, Eq. (3), Fig. 5(b)] The reported QMC saturation field of H_s ≈ 5 T is inconsistent with the exchange parameter J2=30 K. For an S=1/2 antiferromagnetic chain with Hamiltonian H = J Σ S_i·S_{i+1}, H_s = 2J/(g μ_B) ≈ 45 T (g=2). The factor-of-9 discrepancy suggests a unit conversion error in the Zeeman term or a mis-stated J2 in the magnetization calculation. Since the field scale of M(H) is a direct consequence of the exchange parameters, the agreement shown in Fig. 5(b) cannot be used to validate the model. Please re-examine the Zeeman term and report the saturation field in consistent units.
  2. [III.A.2, Eq. (1) and III.B.4] The QMC parameters J1=8 K, J2=30 K are selected to reproduce the experimental χ(T) after subtracting an impurity contribution whose parameters C_imp and θ_imp are never reported (Eq. (1)). This makes the agreement in Fig. 5(a) a fit rather than an independent prediction. The ab initio J2=4.35 meV ≈ 50 K, while the fitted J2=30 K; a χ maximum for J2≈50 K would occur near T_max≈0.64J≈32 K, not 18 K. The factor-1.7 reduction is not discussed. Please report the impurity parameters, show simulations using the ab initio couplings, and state explicitly which parameters are free.
  3. [III.A.2, Fig. 2] A powder susceptibility measurement is compared directly to a single-crystal anisotropic 2D model without powder averaging or an explicit g-tensor. The low-temperature upturn may contain intrinsic contributions (e.g., chain-end spins or a small gap) that, if mistakenly assigned to impurities, would shift the extracted χ_spin and hence the fitted J1,J2. Provide C_imp and θ_imp and perform a sensitivity analysis of the fitted couplings to the impurity subtraction.
  4. [III.B.4, Eq. (3)] Two issues with Eq. (3): (i) with positive J1,J2 and the prefactor −, the exchange terms are ferromagnetic, contradicting the antiferromagnetic couplings in Table II; (ii) for S=1/2, the single-ion anisotropy term K(S^z)^2 is a constant because (S^z)^2=1/4, so it cannot produce the uniaxial anisotropy described in the text. Please correct the sign convention and identify the actual microscopic source of the anisotropy (e.g., anisotropic exchange or g-tensor anisotropy).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The chemical formula is given as KCuInP2O8 in the abstract but as KCuIn(PO4)2 in the title and throughout the text. Please correct.
  2. [Section II.B] Typos: 'V ASP' should be 'VASP'; 'quantum monte-carlo' should be 'Monte Carlo'. Also in the author list, 'V . K. Singh' has an extra space.
  3. [Table II] The exchange constants J1, J2, J3 are reported as negative numbers while the text describes them as antiferromagnetic. Please state the sign convention used in the magnetic force theorem (e.g., H = -Σ J_ij S_i·S_j) so the signs are unambiguous.
  4. [Section VI, Table III] The text states that the three acoustic modes 'approach zero as expected', but the lowest frequencies listed are 0.231, 0.245, and 0.760 THz. Please clarify whether the acoustic sum rule has been enforced or why these finite values are acceptable.
  5. [Fig. 5(b)] The statement that the experimental 2-K data agree well with the theoretical 4-K curve while noting differences at 2 K is confusing. Provide residuals, error bars, or a quantitative measure of agreement (e.g., χ²) rather than a qualitative statement.
  6. [Conclusion vs. Section III.B.4] The conclusion describes 'gapless spin excitations' while Section III.B.4 refers to a 'singlet-dominated ground state' and 'closure of the spin gap' at saturation. An S=1/2 Heisenberg chain is gapless; please reconcile these descriptions.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

QMC susceptibility 'reproduction' is a fit: J2=30 K and J1=8 K are chosen to match the same χ_spin(T) curve that is then shown as agreement; only the J2/J1 ratio is checked against DFT.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III.B.4 (Quantum monte-carlo simulations), Eq. (3) and Fig. 5(a)]
    "We find that a parameter set with J 2 =30 K and J 1 =8 K reproduces the experimental susceptibility remarkably well, yielding a ratio J 2/J1 ≈3.75."

    The simulated χ(T) in Fig. 5(a) is obtained by solving Eq. (3) with precisely these J values, and the values are introduced as found to reproduce the target χ_spin(T) plotted on the same axes. The agreement is thus imposed by the parameter choice, not derived. The only independent, non-circular comparison is the ratio 3.75 against the magnetic-force-theorem ratio ≈4.8; the absolute scales (8 K, 30 K) are not DFT predictions (Table II magnitudes would be ≈-0.90 meV ≈ -10.4 K and ≈-4.35 meV ≈ -50.5 K), so the quantitative 'reproduction' is a fit renamed as confirmation.

full rationale

The paper contains one clear fitted-input-called-prediction step: the QMC susceptibility is shown to agree with experiment after J2=30 K and J1=8 K were selected to reproduce that same experimental susceptibility. By the paper's own wording, this is a parameter search against the target, so the 'quantitative reproduction' is circular for the absolute coupling strengths and the peak position. Non-circular content remains in the independently computed DFT/force-theorem ratio J2/J1≈4.8, the structural identification of the J2 chain path, and the post-fit M(H) comparison, which is not used to set the parameters. That is a consistency check, not a parameter-free prediction. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: reference [11] concerns a sister compound and is not invoked to force the model; the ALPS/SSE solver is a standard external code. A sign error in Eq. (3) (positive J with H=-J S·S is ferromagnetic in the usual convention) and the suspiciously low reported saturation field near 5 T for J2=30 K are correctness risks, not circularity, and do not change the score. Overall: partial circularity (score 6).

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central quantitative claim relies on two free-parameter fits: the impurity subtraction that defines the target susceptibility, and the QMC exchange couplings fit to that target. The DFT hierarchy is an independent input with one free U value, providing a partial cross-check on the ratio J2/J1 but not on the absolute scale.

free parameters (4)
  • Hubbard U (and Hund's J) = U=6 eV, J=0.8 eV
    Standard DFT+U correction for Cu-3d; chosen from literature for cuprates rather than fitted to KCuIn(PO4)2 data. Robustness is checked at U=4 and 8 eV, but the exchange magnitudes and QMC fit depend on U.
  • QMC exchange couplings J1, J2 = J1=8 K, J2=30 K
    Selected to reproduce the experimental susceptibility peak and magnitude (Section III.B.4). The 'prediction' of χ(T) is a fit to the target data.
  • Impurity Curie parameters C_imp, θ_imp = not reported
    Eq. (1) models the low-T upturn; the extracted χ_spin used for all comparisons depends on these fitted values.
  • Single-ion anisotropy K = not reported
    Included in Eq. (3) to account for magnetocrystalline anisotropy, but never specified. For S=1/2 the term (S_i^z)^2 is a constant and cannot create an easy axis.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption GGA+U with U=6 eV describes the Mott-insulating ground state and exchange couplings of this Cu2+ oxide.
    Used throughout Section II.B; standard for cuprates, not derived here; magnetic force theorem results inherit this assumption.
  • domain assumption The magnetic force theorem as implemented in RSPt gives accurate J_ij.
    Section II.B and III.B.3; the J2>J1 hierarchy rests on these numbers, with corroboration from Wannier hopping ratios.
  • standard math For S=1/2, (S_i^z)^2 is a constant, so a single-ion anisotropy term K(S_i^z)^2 does not break spin-rotation symmetry.
    Eq. (3); the paper nevertheless writes this term as the source of uniaxial anisotropy, which is mathematically inert.
  • domain assumption The J1-J2 honeycomb network (J2 forming chains, J1 connecting them) captures the relevant low-energy degrees of freedom; interlayer J3 is negligible.
    Section III.B.3-III.B.4; the QMC lattice and geometry follow this mapping, and no alternative couplings are considered.
  • domain assumption The experimentally refined crystal structure is correct and dynamically stable.
    Section II and Appendix; no structural relaxation was performed, and phonon stability was checked only at the Γ-point.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasi-Two-Dimensional Quantum Antiferromagnetism in the Distorted Honeycomb Compound KCuIn(PO4)2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2NRUWISG

@misc{pith2026260721868,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasi-Two-Dimensional Quantum Antiferromagnetism in the Distorted Honeycomb Compound KCuIn(PO4)2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2NRUWISG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21868}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the electronic structure and magnetic properties of the distorted honeycomb lattice compound KCuInP2O8 through a combination of experimental measurements, first principles calculations and quantum monte carlo simulations. Density functional theory calculations within the GGA+U framework establishes KCuInP2O8 as an indirect gap insulator with Cu2+ local moments and finite magnetocrystalline anisotropy arising from spin orbit coupling. A microscopic evaluation of magnetic exchange interactions using the magnetic force theorem reveals a pronounced hierarchy of couplings, with the next nearest neighbor interaction dominating over the nearest neighbor exchange, while interlayer couplings remain negligible. This exchange hierarchy naturally maps the system onto weakly coupled antiferromagnetic spin chains embedded in a distorted honeycomb lattice. Motivated by the ab initio estimated exchange interactions, we construct an effective spin half Hamiltonian and investigate its magnetic response using large scale quantum Monte Carlo simulations. The calculated temperature dependent susceptibility and field dependent magnetization quantitatively reproduce the experimental behavior and capture key signatures of low dimensional quantum magnetism, including a broad susceptibility maximum and a field induced saturation at low temperatures. Our results establish KCuInP2O8 as a quasi-two-dimensional quantum antiferromagnet composed of coupled spin chains, providing a consistent theoretical framework that links electronic structure, exchange interactions, and collective magnetic behavior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21868 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Crystal structure of KCuIn(PO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) The temperature dependence of the magnetic suscepti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Four distinct Cu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Total electronic density of states (DOS) of KCuIn(PO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Temperature-dependent magnetic susceptibility calcu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Structural characterization X-ray diffraction (XRD) was used to verify the structural quality and phase purity of the synthesized KCuIn(PO4)2 sam- ple. The measured diffraction pattern shows excellent agree- ment with the simulated pattern obtained from the corre- sponding crystallographic information file (CIF), confirming the formation of a single-phase...

  2. [2]

    spins. The separation between adjacent honeycomb layers is about 6.98 Å, underscoring the quasi-two-dimensional character of the magnetic lattice and supporting the relevance of a 2D spin model for describing the magnetism of KCuIn(PO4)2

  3. [3]

    Magnetization Measurements In order to understand magnetism, we have measured the temperature dependence of the magnetic susceptibilityχ(T) of polycrystalline KCuIn(PO 4)2 as shown in Fig. 2. Since measured susceptibility also include contributions from dilute paramagnetic impurities, the total susceptibility can be written as χ(T)=χ 0 + Cimp T+θ imp +χ s...

  4. [4]

    The temperature- independent termχ 0 contains contributions from core dia- magnetism and Van Vleck paramagnetism

    moments. The temperature- independent termχ 0 contains contributions from core dia- magnetism and Van Vleck paramagnetism. Summing the diamagnetic terms of the constituent ions (K +, Cu 2+, P 5+, O2−) givesχ dia ≈ −1.50×10−4 cm3/mol [33]. Subtracting this fromχ 0 yields a small Van Vleck component,χ VV ≈ 1.2×10 −5 cm3/mol, arising from second-order mixing...

  5. [5]

    As a first step, we evaluated the relative sta- bility of several plausible magnetic configurations within the crystallographic unit cell

    Lowest energy state To complement the experimental magnetization results and to gain microscopic insight into the magnetic interactions governing KCuIn(PO 4)2, we carried out a systematic first- principles analysis of the electronic structure and magnetism of this system. As a first step, we evaluated the relative sta- bility of several plausible magnetic...

  6. [6]

    Thus, we computed the total and projected density of states (DOS) for the Cu-d and O-porbitals, as shown in Fig

    Electronic structure Before analyzing the magnetic interactions in detail, it is essential to understand the underlying electronic structure and the spin state of the Cu ions, which fundamentally determine the magnetic behavior of KCuIn(PO 4)2. Thus, we computed the total and projected density of states (DOS) for the Cu-d and O-porbitals, as shown in Fig....

  7. [7]

    Interatomic Exchange Couplings Having established the preferred spin configuration within the crystallographic unit cell, we next turned to evaluating the interatomic magnetic exchange interactions (J i j) that govern the emergent magnetic properties of KCuIn(PO 4)2. A quan- titative determination of these couplings is crucial for con- structing an accura...

  8. [8]

    Quantum monte-carlo simulations The microscopic exchange analysis based on first- principles calculations establishes a clear hierarchy of mag- netic interactions in KCuIn(PO 4)2, with the next-nearest- neighbor couplingJ 2 significantly larger than the nearest- neighbor interactionJ 1. This hierarchy naturally suggests a magnetic picture dominated by qua...

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    moments and finite magnetocrystalline anisotropy, arsing due to the pres- ence of spin–orbit-coupling. A detailed evaluation of mag- netic exchange interactions uncovers a pronounced hierarchy of couplings, with the next-nearest-neighbor interactionJ 2 dominating over the near...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Belik, M

    A. Belik, M. Azuma, and M. Takano, Characterization of quasi-one-dimensional s=1/2 heisenberg antiferromagnets sr2cu(po4)2 and ba2cu(po4)2 with magnetic susceptibility, spe- cific heat, and thermal analysis, Journal of Solid State Chem- istry177, 883 (2004)

    2004

  3. [11]

    J. G. Bednorz and K. A. M ¨uller, Possible high tc superconduc- tivity in the ba–la–cu–o system, Zeitschrift f ¨ur Physik B Con- densed Matter64, 189 (1986)

    1986

  4. [12]

    Y . Ando, J. Takeya, D. L. Sisson, S. G. Doettinger, I. Tanaka, R. S. Feigelson, and A. Kapitulnik, Thermal conductivity of the spin-peierls compound cugeo3, Phys. Rev. B58, R2913 (1998)

    1998

  5. [13]

    Rosner, H

    H. Rosner, H. Eschrig, R. Hayn, S.-L. Drechsler, and J. M ´alek, Electronic structure and magnetic properties of the linear chain cuprates sr2cuo3and ca2cuo3, Phys. Rev. B56, 3402 (1997)

    1997

  6. [14]

    Yalc ¸ın, F

    O. Yalc ¸ın, F. Yıldız, and B. Aktas ¸, Spin-flop and spin-peierls transition in doped cugeo3, Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy66, 307 (2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    T. T. Tran, C. A. Pocs, Y . Zhang, M. J. Winiarski, J. Sun, M. Lee, and T. M. McQueen, Spinon excitations in the quasi- one-dimensionals= 1 2 chain compound Cs 4CuSb2Cl12, Phys. Rev. B101, 235107 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    J. A. Schneeloch, R. Zhong, M. B. Stone, I. A. Zaliznyak, G. D. Gu, G. Xu, and J. M. Tranquada, Gapless spin excitations in superconducting la2−xca1+xcu2o6 withT c up to 55 k, Phys. Rev. B99, 174515 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Jacobsen, I

    H. Jacobsen, I. A. Zaliznyak, A. T. Savici, B. L. Winn, S. Chang, M. H¨ucker, G. D. Gu, and J. M. Tranquada, Neutron scattering study of spin ordering and stripe pinning in supercon- ducting la1.93sr0.07cuo4, Phys. Rev. B92, 174525 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Schmitt, O

    M. Schmitt, O. Janson, S. Golbs, M. Schmidt, W. Schnelle, J. Richter, and H. Rosner, Microscopic magnetic modeling for thes= 1 2 alternating-chain compounds na 3cu2sbo6 and na2cu2teo6, Phys. Rev. B89, 174403 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    A. N. Vasiliev, O. S. V olkova, E. A. Zvereva, A. V . Koshelev, V . S. Urusov, D. A. Chareev, V . I. Petkov, M. V . Sukhanov, B. Rahaman, and T. Saha-Dasgupta, Valence-bond solid as the quantum ground state in honeycomb layered urusovite CuAl(Aso4)O, Phys. Rev. B91, 144406 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    V . K. Singh, J. Link, K. Kargeti, M. Barik, B. Lenz, N. Saraswat, U. Jena, I. Heinmaa, P. Khuntia, K. Boya, S. K. Panda, R. Stern, Y . Bitla, T. Chakrabarty, and B. Koteswararao, Magnetic properties ofs= 1 2 distortedJ 1−J2 honeycomb lattice compound NaCuIn(PO4)2, Phys. Rev. ...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Hester, H

    G. Hester, H. S. Nair, T. Reeder, D. R. Yahne, T. N. DeLazzer, L. Berges, D. Ziat, J. R. Neilson, A. A. Aczel, G. Sala, J. A. Quilliam, and K. A. Ross, Novel strongly spin-orbit coupled quantum dimer magnet: yb2si2o7, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 027201 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Rodr ´ıguez Carvajal, Recent advances in magnetic structure determination by neutron powder diffraction, Physica B: Con- dens

    J. Rodr ´ıguez Carvajal, Recent advances in magnetic structure determination by neutron powder diffraction, Physica B: Con- dens. Matter192, 55 (1993)

    1993

  15. [23]

    Kohn and L

    W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Self-consistent equations includ- ing exchange and correlation effects, Phys. Rev.140, A1133 (1965)

    1965

  16. [24]

    Hohenberg and W

    P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Inhomogeneous electron gas, Phys. Rev.136, B864 (1964)

    1964

  17. [25]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Ab initio molecular dynamics for liq- uid metals, Phys. Rev. B47, 558 (1993)

    1993

  18. [26]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm ¨uller, Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set, Phys. Rev. B54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  19. [27]

    P. E. Bl ¨ochl, Projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B 50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  20. [28]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  21. [29]

    V . I. Anisimov, J. Zaanen, and O. K. Andersen, Band theory and mott insulators: Hubbard u instead of stoner i, Phys. Rev. B44, 943 (1991)

    1991

  22. [30]

    S. K. Panda, H. Jiang, and S. Biermann, Pressure dependence of dynamically screened coulomb interactions in nio: Effective 9 hubbard, hund, intershell, and intersite components, Phys. Rev. B96, 045137 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    T. C. Sterling and D. Reznik, Effect of the electronic charge gap on lo bond-stretching phonons in undoped La2CuO4 calculated using LDA+U, Phys. Rev. B104, 134311 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Singh, S

    V . Singh, S. Gayen, S. S. Ali, R. Moharana, T. Chakrabarty, B. Koteswararao, S. Chattopadhyay, and S. Panda, Magnetic and electronic structure studies on s=1/2 heisenberg antiferro- magnetic alternating spin chain system kcuga(po4)2, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Material...

    2025

  25. [33]

    J. M. Wills and B. R. Cooper, Synthesis of band and model hamiltonian theory for hybridizing cerium systems, Phys. Rev. B36, 3809 (1987)

    1987

  26. [34]

    Liechtenstein, M

    A. Liechtenstein, M. Katsnelson, V . Antropov, and V . Gubanov, Local spin density functional approach to the theory of ex- change interactions in ferromagnetic metals and alloys, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials67, 65 (1987)

    1987

  27. [35]

    M. I. Katsnelson and A. I. Lichtenstein, First-principles calcula- tions of magnetic interactions in correlated systems, Phys. Rev. B61, 8906 (2000)

    2000

  28. [36]

    S. K. Panda, Y . O. Kvashnin, B. Sanyal, I. Dasgupta, and O. Eriksson, Electronic structure and exchange interactions of insulating double perovskite la 2curuo6, Phys. Rev. B94, 064427 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Kargeti, A

    K. Kargeti, A. Sen, and S. K. Panda, Strain-induced electronic and magnetic transition in thes= 3 2 antiferromagnetic spin chain compound lacrs3, Phys. Rev. B109, 035125 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    B. Lenz, B. Koteswararao, S. Biermann, P. Khuntia, M. Baenitz, and S. K. Panda,s=1 dimer system k 2Ni(MoO4)2: A candi- date for magnon bose-einstein condensation, Phys. Rev. B106, L180408 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    A. W. Sandvik, Stochastic series expansion methods (2019), arXiv:1909.10591 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Bauer, L

    B. Bauer, L. D. Carr, H. G. Evertz, A. Feiguin, J. Freire, S. Fuchs, L. Gamper, J. Gukelberger, E. Gull, S. Guertler, A. Hehn, R. Igarashi, S. V . Isakov, D. Koop, P. N. Ma, P. Mates, H. Matsuo, O. Parcollet, G. Pawłowski, J. D. Picon, L. Pollet, E. Santos, V . W. Scarola, U. ...

    2011

  33. [41]

    Badri, S

    A. Badri, S. Slimi, I. Mokni, N. Dege, R. M. Sol ´e, M. Aguil ´o, F. D´ıaz, X. Mateos, and M. B. Amara, Synthesis, crystals struc- tures and theoretical studies of novel alkali copper indium or- thophosphates acuin (po4) 2 (a=na, k and rb), Journal of Solid State Chemistry318,...

    2023

  34. [42]

    P. W. Selwood,Magnetochemistry(Read Books Ltd, 2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    R. Nath, K. M. Ranjith, J. Sichelschmidt, M. Baenitz, Y . Sk- ourski, F. Alet, I. Rousochatzakis, and A. A. Tsirlin, Hindered magnetic order from mixed dimensionalities in cup 2o6, Phys. Rev. B89, 014407 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    Weiss, John b

    A. Weiss, John b. goodenough: Magnetism and the chem- ical bond. interscience publishers. new york, london 1963. 393 seiten, 89 abbildungen. preis: Dm 95 s., Berichte der Bunsengesellschaft f ¨ur physikalische Chemie68, 996 (1964), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.10...

    1963 doi

  37. [45]

    Parlinski, Z

    K. Parlinski, Z. Q. Li, and Y . Kawazoe, First-principles deter- mination of the soft mode in cubic zro 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 4063 (1997). 10 TABLE III. CalculatedΓ-point phonon modes and their corresponding frequencies (in THz) obtained using the finite-displacement method. ...

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.