Orbital degeneracy as a source of frustration in LiNiO2

Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics

Volumn 70, Issue 1, 2004, Pages

  Vernay, F ^a   Penc, K ^b   Fazekas, P ^b   Mila, F ^a  

^a EPFL   (Switzerland)

^b WIGNER RESEARCH CENTRE FOR PHYSICS   (Hungary)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LITHIUM; NICKEL; OXYGEN;

ARTICLE; GEOMETRY; INSULATOR ELEMENT; MAGNETISM; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MOLECULAR MODEL; PHASE TRANSITION; PREDICTION; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS;

EID: 42749104310     PISSN: 01631829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.70.014428     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. M. V. Mostovoy and D. I. Khomskii, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 227203 (2002).
2. E. Chappel, M. D. Nunez-Regueiro, G. Chouteau, O. Isnard, and C. Darie, Eur. Phys. J. B 17, 615 (2000).
3. K. Yamaura, M. Takano, A. Hirano, and R. Kanno, J. Solid State Chem. 127, 109 (1996).
4. 2g, but this effect does not appear explicitely in our reasoning.
5. E. Chappel, M. D. Nunez-Regueiro, F. Dupont, G. Chouteau, C. Darie, and A. Sulpice, Eur. Phys. J. B 17, 609 (2000).
6. At least not to an identifiable long-range pattern. EXAFS studies [A. Rougier, C. Delmas, and A. V. Chadwick, Solid State Commun. 94, 123 (1995)] indicate that there is a local distortion at every Ni site, but the distortion pattern is frustrated, and does not support an (orbital) ordering transition
7. K. Hirota, Y. Nakazawa, and M. Ishikawa, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 3, 4721 (1991).
8. Y. Kitaoka, T. Kobayashi, A. Koda, H. Wakabayashi, Y. Niino, H. Yamakage, S. Taguchi, K. Amaya, K. Yamaura, M. Takano, A. Hirano, and R. Kanno, J. Photogr. Sci. 67, 3703 (1998).
9. For a review, cf. A. M. Oleś, M. Cuoco, and N. B. Perkins, in Lectures on the Physics of Highly Correlated Electron Systems, edited by F. Mancini, AIP Conf. Proc. 527 (New York, 2000), p. 226.
10. P. W. Anderson: Mater. Res. Bull. 8, 153 (1973).
11. P. Fazekas and P. W. Anderson, Philos. Mag. 30, 423 (1974); B. Kleine, E. Müller-Hartmann, K. Frahm, and P. Fazekas, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 87, 103 (1992).
12. P. Fazekas and P. W. Anderson, Philos. Mag. 30, 423 (1974); B. Kleine, E. Müller-Hartmann, K. Frahm, and P. Fazekas, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 87, 103 (1992).
13. F. Reynaud, D. Mertz, F. Celestini, J.-M. Debierre, A. M. Ghorayeb, P. Simon, A. Stepanov, J. Voiron, and C. Delmas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3638 (2001).
14. K. Hirakawa, H. Kadowaki, and K. Ubukoshi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 54, 3526 (1985).
15. T. Arimori and S. Miyashita, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 69, 2250 (2000).
16. K. Penc, M. Mambrini, P. Fazekas, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. B 68, 012408 (2003).
17. K. I. Kugel and D. I. Khomskii, Sov. Phys. Usp. 25, 232, (1982).
18. C. Castellani, C. R. Natoli, and J. Ranninger, Phys. Rev. B 18, 4945 (1978).
19. 3d. This would be important if we included the effect of the relativistic spin-orbit interaction. In the present work, we assume that the spin and orbital Hilbert spaces are decoupled, and total spin eigenstates can be combined with point group basis states.
20. h.
21. h should have been chosen differently. Summing over all pairs, the resulting Hamiltonian respects the space group symmetry of the lattice.
22. A. M. Daré, R. Hayn, and J. L. Richard, Europhys. Lett. 61, 803 (2003).
23. H ≠ 0.
24. Y. Q. Li, M. Ma, D. N. Shi, and F. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3527 (1998).
25. 3d double group.
26. G. Mihály, I. Kézsmárki, F. Zámborszky, M. Miljak, K. Penc, P. Fazekas, H. Berger, and L. Forró, Phys. Rev. B 61, R7831 (2000).
27. In the sense that the fluctuating antiparallel correlations of a singlet are extrapolated to the antiparallel correlations of quasi-classical antiferromagnetic order. For spin-orbital models, the reasoning cannot be so straightforward.
28. y-polarization at non-integral fillings, though this solution does not seem motivated by the spin-orbital Hamiltonian [A. Takahashi and H. Shiba, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 69, 3328 (2000)].
29. For a pair of different orientation, it would be axial symmetry about a different direction in pseudospin space. It is for this reason that axial symmetry of the pair cannot be restated as a global symmetry of the lattice.
30. Note that this section of the line is not a phase boundary, but it lies inside the (S = 1, T = 0) phase. Selecting the nondegenerate state |ab〉-|ba〉 does not require any special orbital symmetry.
31. F. Mila, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2356 (1998).
32. We are not too worried about this point for the following reason: the tetrahedral symmetry is atypically high, and probably gives a too large preference to SU(4) solutions. N > 4 pieces of the triangular lattice (even with periodic boundary conditions imposed) are less symmetrical.
33. This was clearly established for the 1D case, where the energy is dominated by the mean-value of the four operator term. See e.g., B. Frischmuth, F. Mila, M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 835 (1999).
34. R. Coldea, D. A. Tennant, K. Habicht, P. Smeibidl, C. Wolters, and Z. Tylczynski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 137203 (2002) and references therein.
35. B. Bernu, C. Lhuillier, and L. Pierre, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2590 (1992).
36. P. Lecheminant, B. Bemu, C. Lhuillier, L. Pierre, and P. Sindzingre, Phys. Rev. B 56, 2521 (1997).
37. R. Moessner and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1881 (2001).
38. G. Chouteau and S. de Brion (private communication); A. Jánossy (private communication).
39. G. Chouteau and S. de Brion (private communication); A. Jánossy (private communication).