This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Magnetic, thermal, and electronic-transport properties of EuMg2Bi2 single crystals

Santanu Pakhira Ames Laboratory, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA    M. A. Tanatar Ames Laboratory, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA    D. C. Johnston Ames Laboratory, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA
(September 23, 2025)
Abstract

The trigonal compound EuMg2Bi2 has recently been discussed in terms of its topological band properties. These are intertwined with its magnetic properties. Here detailed studies of the magnetic, thermal, and electronic transport properties of EuMg2Bi2 single crystals are presented. The Eu+2 spins-7/2 in EuMg2Bi2 exhibit an antiferromagnetic (AFM) transition at a temperature TN=6.7T_{\rm N}=6.7 K, as previously reported. By analyzing the anisotropic magnetic susceptibility χ\chi data below TNT_{\rm N} in terms of molecular-field theory (MFT), the AFM structure is inferred to be a cc-axis helix, where the ordered moments in the hexagonal abab-plane layers are aligned ferromagnetically in the abab plane with a turn angle between the moments in adjacent moment planes along the cc axis of 120\approx 120^{\circ}. An alternate but less likely magnetic structure is a planar structure with nearest-neighbor Eu spins aligned at 120\approx 120^{\circ} with respect to each other, where these ordered-moment layers are stacked along the cc axis. The magnetic heat capacity exhibits a λ\lambda anomaly at TNT_{\rm N} with evidence of dynamic short-range magnetic fluctuations both above and below TNT_{\rm N}. The high-TT limit of the magnetic entropy is close to the theoretical value for spins-7/2. The in-plane electrical resistivity ρ(T)\rho(T) data indicate metallic character with a mild and disorder-sensitive upturn below Tmin=23T_{\rm min}=23 K. An anomalous rapid drop in ρ(T)\rho(T) on cooling below TNT_{\rm N} as found in zero field is replaced by a two-step decrease in magnetic fields. The ρ(T)\rho(T) measurements also reveal an additional transition below TNT_{\rm N} in applied fields of unknown origin that is not observed in the other measurements and may be associated with an incommensurate to commensurate AFM transition. The dependence of TNT_{\rm N} on the cc-axis magnetic field HH_{\perp} was derived from the field-dependent χ(T)\chi(T), Cp(T)C_{\rm p}(T), and ρ(T)\rho(T) measurements. This TN(H)T_{\rm N}(H_{\perp}) was found to be consistent with the prediction of MFT for a cc-axis helix with S=7/2S=7/2 and was used to generate a phase diagram in the HH_{\perp}-TT plane.

I Introduction

The interplay between magnetism and band topology has generated immense interest recently due to the discovery of nontrivial phenomena such as the quantum anomalous Hall effect (QAHE) Qi2006_QAHE ; Liu2008_QAHE ; Yu2010_QAHE ; Chang2013_QAHE ; Liu2016_QAHE , axion electrodynamics Essin2009_AED ; Li2010_AED ; Lee_AED ; Wu2016_AED , and realization of relativistic particles like Majorana fermions Do2017_Majorana ; Akhmerov2009_Majorana ; Cook2011_Majorana ; Xu2015_Majorana . A topological state manifests topologically-protected electronic surface states that are different in nature from the bulk states Fu2007_TI ; Hasan2010_TI ; Moore2010_TI ; Qi2011_TI ; Ando2013_TI ; Tokura2019_TI . In addition to the parabolic bulk band, depending upon symmetry preservation, a unique gapless/gapped surface state with a linear energy versus crystal momentum EE-kk relation is also observed in these materials, resulting in massless surface electrons with ultrahigh mobility.

Time reversal symmetry (TRS) invariance in topological insulating states and its breaking in the presence of magnetism play a key role in discoveries in this field. Exotic quantum phenomena such as QAHE, chiral Majorana modes, and the topological magnetoelectric effect (TME) have been predicted in topological materials based on TRS breaking by magnetic order, with experimental support Liu2008_QAHE ; Yu2010_QAHE ; Chang2013_QAHE ; Essin2009_AED ; Li2010_AED ; Do2017_Majorana ; Fu2007_TI ; Qi2008_TRB ; Garate2010_TRB ; Xu2012_TRB . In a topological material exhibiting the QAHE, electrons can carry a dissipationless current, which is thus promising for use in energy-efficient electronic devices and also for fast computing. The experimental realization of QAHE in magnetic topological insulators has paved the way for researchers to discover other novel phenomena by studying various magnetic topological systems. In order to fully understand the phenomena triggered by TRS breaking in such magnetic topological systems, it is essential to understand the magnetic structure and symmetry of those materials.

Rare-earth-based intermetallic compounds have been of significant interest for many years due to their complex properties such as superconductivity, heavy fermion behavior, valence fluctuations, giant magnetocaloric effect, Kondo behavior, and quantum criticality Fertig1977_IC ; Nagarajan1994_IC ; Ghosh1995_IC ; Curro2000_IC ; Hundley2001_IC ; Sakai2011_IC ; Yamaoka2014_IC ; Pecharsky1997_IC ; Pakhira2016_IC ; Pakhira2017_IC ; Buschow1969_IC ; Gignoux1984_IC ; Ishida2002_IC ; Arndt2011_IC . Several rare-earth-based intermetallic compounds have also been discovered recently to exhibit topological states coupled with magnetic interactions Hirschberger2016_GdPtBi ; Wang2016_YbMnBi2 ; May2014_EuMnBi2 ; Soh2019_EuMnSb2 ; Schellenberg2011_EuCd2As2 ; Jo2020_EuCd2As2 ; Xu2019_EuIn2As2 . These discoveries reveal the subtle importance of magnetism in controlling the electronic surface states in the magnetic topological materials.

Recently, multiple Dirac states at different energies with respect to the Fermi energy were reported in a new magnetic topological material EuMg2Bi2 Kabir2019 . The magnetic ground state of the compound was suggested to be AFM in nature below TN7T_{\rm N}\approx 7 K, the details of which are unclear as yet Kabir2019 ; May2011 ; Ramirez2015 . Based on the magnetic susceptibility behavior, where the cc-axis susceptibility χc\chi_{c} decreases somewhat and the abab-plane susceptibility χab\chi_{ab} is almost temperature independent below TNT_{\rm N}, it was suggested that the moments are aligned along the cc axis Kabir2019 , presumably in a collinear AFM structure. In order to understand the mechanism of topological surface states and also to tune its nature it is important to clarify the magnetic structure and its evolution with applied magnetic field in EuMg2Bi2.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Generic helical AFM structure Johnston2012 ; Johnston2015 . Each arrow represents a layer of moments perpendicular to the zz axis that are ferromagnetically aligned within the xyxy plane and with interlayer separation dd. The wave vector k of the helix is directed along the zz axis. The magnetic moment turn angle between adjacent magnetic layers is kdkd. The exchange interactions J1J_{1} and J2J_{2} within the one-dimensional J0J_{0}-J1J_{1}-J2J_{2} Heisenberg MFT model are indicated.
Refer to caption
Figure 2: Schematic illustration of a 120 cycloidal helix AFM structure on a triangular lattice that occurs when the wave vector k of a cycloid is in the xyxy-plane in which the ordered magnetic moments reside. The definitions of dd and the exchange constants are the same as in Fig. 1.

The primary purpose of this work was to investigate the magnetic structure and to explore the magnetic phase diagram of EuMg2Bi2 as a function of temperature and applied magnetic field HH to provide an experimental basis for relating the properties to the topology of the theoretical band structure. We present detailed measurements of the anisotropic χ\chi versus temperature TT and magnetization MM versus HH isotherms for EuMg2Bi2 single crystals, together with complementary heat-capacity and electrical-resistivity measurements. We find that the magnetic susceptibilities for fields applied both in-plane and out-of-plane are almost temperature independent below TNT_{\rm N}, which is very unusual in magnetic Eu+2-based systems. Using a recently-developed molecular-field theory (MFT) Johnston2012 ; Johnston2015 , we deduce that the nearly TT-independent χ(T)\chi(T) data below TNT_{\rm N} indicate that the magnetic structure is either a cc-axis helix in which the Eu moments are ferromagnetically aligned within each abab plane layer, with a turn angle kd120kd\approx 120^{\circ} between the moments in adjacent layers as generically illustrated in Fig. 1 Johnston2012 ; Johnston2015 , or a stacked coplanar structure with a 120120^{\circ} angle between adjacent Eu moments in each triangular-lattice abab-plane layer as in the 120 cycloidal structure in Fig. 2. The in-plane electrical resistivity ρ(T)\rho(T) data indicate metallic character with a mild and disorder-sensitive upturn below Tmin=23T_{\rm min}=23 K. An anomalous rapid drop on cooling below TNT_{\rm N} as found in zero field is replaced by a two-step decrease in magnetic fields. The ρ(T)\rho(T) measurements also reveal an additional transition below TNT_{\rm N} in applied fields of unknown origin that is not observed in the other measurements and may be associated with an incommensurate to commensurate AFM transition.

The experimental details and the crystal structure studies are discussed in Sec. II. The χ(T)\chi(T) and M(H)M(H) isotherm data and analyses are given in Sec. III. Our heat capacity Cp(H,T)C_{\rm p}(H,T) data and analyses are presented in Sec. IV, and the electrical resistivity ρ(H,T)\rho(H,T) data and analyses in Sec. V. The paper concludes with a summary in Sec. VI.

II Experimental Details and Crystal Structure

Single crystals of EuMg2Bi2 and YbMg2Bi2 were grown with the flux method in two different ways using high purity elements Eu (Ames Laboratory), Mg (Alfa Aesar, 99.98%), and Bi (Alfa Aesar, 99.9999%). One batch of crystals was obtained from the nominal flux composition EuMg4Bi6 and YbMg4Bi6 as described elsewhere May2011 . Another batch of crystals was grown from the starting composition EuMg2Bi7. The starting elements were loaded into alumina crucibles and sealed in silica tubes under 1/4\approx 1/4 atm of Ar gas. A sealed tube was heated to 900 C at a rate of 50 C/h and held at that temperature for 12 h. Then it was cooled to 500 C over 200 h and the single crystals were then obtained by decanting the excess flux using a centrifuge. Most of the crystals obtained are three dimensional in shape with clear trigonal facets. In this work measurements were carried out on crystals obtained using the first growth process.

Room-temperature x-ray diffraction (XRD) measurements were carried out using a Rigaku Geigerflex x-ray diffractometer using Cu-Kα radiation. Structural analysis was performed by Rietveld refinement using the Fullprof software package Carvajal1993 . The chemical composition and homogeneity of the crystals were checked using a JEOL scanning-electron microscope (SEM) equipped with an EDS (energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy) analyzer.

The TT- and HH-dependent magnetization measurements were performed using a magnetic-properties measurement system (MPMS, Quantum Design, Inc.) in the TT range 1.8–300 K and HH up to 5.5 T (1 T 104\equiv 10^{4} Oe). A Quantm Design, Inc., physical-properties measurement system (PPMS) was used to measure Cp(H,T)C_{\rm p}(H,T) and ρ(H,T)\rho(H,T). Contacts to the samples were soldered with In in standard four-probe configuration, similar to the technique used for FeSe FeSeresistivity . The contact resistance was in the sub-Ohm range.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: EuMg2Bi2 crystal structure. (top) Projection of the structure onto the hexagonal abab plane. (bottom) Three-dimensional hexagonal unit cell.
Refer to caption
Figure 4: Room temperature powder x-ray diffraction pattern of EuMg2Bi2. The solid black line through the red circle experimental data points is the Rietveld refinement calculated for the CaAl2Si2-type crystal structure (space group P3¯m1P\bar{3}m1). The green vertical bars are the allowed Bragg positions and the blue solid curve at the bottom represents the difference between the experimental and calculated diffraction patterns.

The reported CaAl2Si2-type trigonal crystal structure of EuMg2Bi2 (space group P3¯m1P\bar{3}m1May2011 ; Zheng1986 is shown in Fig. 3. The structure consists of stacked planar triangular lattices of Eu in the abab plane separated along the cc axis by two ordered MgBi layers. The room-temperature powder x-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern collected on crushed EuMg2Bi2 single crystals along with our Rietveld refinement are shown in Fig. 4. The refinement confirms that EuMg2Bi2 crystallizes in the CaAl2Si2-type crystal structure with space group P3¯m1P\bar{3}m1. The refined parameters are summarized in Table 1. The lattice parameters obtained are in agreement with previously reported values May2011 ; Ramirez2015 ; Kabir2019 . The SEM-EDS measurements confirm the homogeneity of the grown crystals with an average composition EuMg1.98(2)Bi2.01(2), which agrees with the stoichiometric composition EuMg2Bi2 to within the errors.

Table 1: Crystallographic and refinement parameters obtained from the structural analysis of room temperature powder x-ray diffraction data of trigonal EuMg2Bi2 (space group P3¯m1P\bar{3}m1).
Hexagonal lattice parameters
a(Å) 4.7724(3)
c(Å) 7.8483(5)
c/a 1.644(1)
Vcell3) 154.80(2)
Refinement quality
χ2\chi^{2} 2.10
Rp (%) 8.43
Rwp (%) 11.5
Atomic coordinates
Atom Wyckoff Symbol x y z occupancy (%)
Eu 1a 0 0 0 100
Mg 2d 1/3 2/3 0.6285(5) 99(2)
Bi 2d 1/3 2/3 0.2499(4) 98(2)

III Magnetic susceptibility versus temperature and magnetization versus field isotherms

III.1 Magnetic susceptibility

Refer to caption
Figure 5: (a) Temperature TT dependence of the zero-field-cooled (ZFC) magnetic susceptibility χ\chi of EuMg2Bi2 measured in a magnetic field H=0.1H=0.1 T applied in the abab plane (χab\chi_{ab}) and along the cc axis (χc)(\chi_{c}). (b) The Heisenberg susceptibility χJ\chi_{J} in the PM state (T>TNT>T_{\rm N}) shown as blue symbols was calculated by taking the spherical average of the data in (a) at TTNT\geq T_{\rm N} using Eq. (1). The χab\chi_{ab} and χc\chi_{c} data at TTNT\leq T_{\rm N} in (a) were then vertically adjusted in (b) to match the χJ(T)\chi_{J}(T) data at TNT_{\rm N}.

The magnetic susceptibility χ=M/H\chi=M/H of a EuMg2Bi2 single crystal was measured at different applied magnetic fields HH in both zero-field-cooled (ZFC) and field-cooled (FC) modes. However, no signature of thermal hysteresis could be evidenced down to the lowest measured temperature even for the lowest applied magnetic field of 0.05 T. The temperature dependences of χ\chi in ZFC mode measured at H=0.1H=0.1 T applied in the abab plane (HabH\parallel ab) and along the cc axis (HcH\parallel c) are shown in Fig. 5(a). Both χab\chi_{ab} and χc\chi_{c} exhibit a sharp peak at TN=6.70(5)T_{\rm N}=6.70(5) K for H=0.1H=0.1 T which is close to the previously reported TNT_{\rm N} for the compound May2011 ; Ramirez2015 ; Kabir2019 . Below TNT_{\rm N}, both χab\chi_{ab} and χc\chi_{c} are almost independent of TT. Because χc<χab\chi_{c}<\chi_{ab} below TNT_{\rm N} as in Fig. 5(a), it was suggested previously that the Eu ordered moments with spins-7/2 aligned antiferromagnetically along the cc axis. We obtain a different model below.

χab\chi_{ab} and χc\chi_{c} start to diverge from each other below T40T\approx 40 K, which is much higher than TNT_{\rm N}. This divergence suggests the occurrence of anisotropic FM fluctuations below this temperature, with the strongest fluctuations in the abab plane. We removed the influence of magnetic anisotropy in the paramagnetic (PM) state above TNT_{\rm N} by carrying out a spherical average of the data according to

χJ(T)=13[2χab(T)+χc(T)](TTN)\displaystyle\chi_{J}(T)=\frac{1}{3}[2\chi_{ab}(T)+\chi_{c}(T)]\qquad(T\geq T_{\rm N}) (1)

as shown in Fig. 5(b), where the designation χJ\chi_{J} denotes that the remaining deviation of the temperature dependence of χ\chi from Curie-Weiss behavior at TTNT\geq T_{\rm N} arises from exchange interactions JJ. Then the χab(T)\chi_{ab}(T) and χc(T)\chi_{c}(T) data at TTNT\leq T_{\rm N} were respectively shifted vertically so that these susceptibilities matched the spherically-averaged PM susceptibility at TNT_{\rm N} as shown in Fig. 5(b).

Interestingly, Fig. 5(b) shows that after correcting for the anisotropy in χ\chi above TNT_{\rm N}, χab\chi_{ab} and χc\chi_{c} are nearly the same and nearly independent of TT below TNT_{\rm N}. According to MFT Johnston2012 ; Johnston2015 , these two features suggest that the Eu spins are ordered in either a stacked planar 120 configuration or in a cc-axis helix with turn angle kd120kd\approx 120^{\circ}. Such behavior was previously observed for different 120120^{\circ}-ordered triangular-lattice AFM systems Katsufuji2001 ; Brown2006 ; Maruyama2001 including for the most quantum spin S=1/2S=1/2, but where the explanation was not available at that time. Indeed, the MFT predicts that for 120 ordering in either a planar structure or in a helix with a 120120^{\circ} turn angle between layers, below TNT_{\rm N} the susceptibility should be isotropic and independent of both TT and the value of the spin quantum number SS Johnston2012 ; Johnston2015 .

The anisotropic field-dependent magnetic susceptibilities χ=M/H\chi=M/H for HabH\parallel ab and HcH\parallel c are plotted versus TT for T<30T<30 K in Figs. 6(a) and (b), respectively. The TNT_{\rm N} shifts to lower temperature with increasing HH for both field directions, but the suppression for H>1H>1 T is clearly faster for HabH\parallel ab than for HcH\parallel c.

Refer to caption
Figure 6: Zero-field-cooled magnetic susceptibility versus temperature TT measured at different applied magnetic fields HH as listed for (a) HabH\parallel ab and (b) HcH\parallel c.

III.2 Inverse magnetic susceptibility and Curie-Weiss behavior in the paramagnetic state

Refer to caption
Figure 7: Inverse magnetic susceptibility χ1(T)\chi^{-1}(T) versus temperature TT for H=0.1H=0.1 T for (a) HabH\parallel ab and (b) HcH\parallel c along with the respective fits by the modified Curie-Weiss law (2).

The inverse magnetic susceptibility data in the PM region are fitted by the modified Curie-Weiss law

χα(T)=χ0+CαTθpα(α=ab,c),\displaystyle\chi_{\alpha}(T)=\chi_{0}+\frac{C_{\alpha}}{T-\theta_{\rm p\alpha}}\qquad(\alpha~=~ab,~c), (2)

where χ0\chi_{0} is an isotropic temperature-independent term, θp\theta_{\rm p} is the Weiss temperature, and CC is the Curie constant given by

Cα\displaystyle C_{\alpha} =\displaystyle= NAgα2S(S+1)μB23kB=NAμeff,α23kB,\displaystyle\frac{N_{\rm A}{g_{\alpha}}^{2}S(S+1)\mu^{2}_{\rm B}}{3k_{\rm B}}=\frac{N_{\rm A}\mu^{2}_{\rm{eff,\alpha}}}{3k_{\rm B}}, (3)

where NAN_{\rm A} is Avogadro’s number, gαg_{\alpha} is the spectroscopic splitting factor (gg factor) for the αth\alpha^{\rm th} direction, kBk_{\rm B} is Boltzmann’s constant, and μeff\mu_{\rm eff} is the effective moment of an Eu spin in units of Bohr magnetons μB\mu\rm_{B}. Figures 7(a) and 7(b) depict the χ1(T)\chi^{-1}(T) behavior in HH = 0.1 T for HabH\parallel ab and HcH\parallel c, respectively, along with the modified Curie-Weiss fits obtained using Eq. (2). The parameters of the fits for the two different field directions are listed in Table 2. The μeff\mu_{\rm eff} values obtained from CC for both applied field directions are close to the value 7.94μB7.94\,\mu_{\rm B} expected for Eu+2 spins S=7/2S=7/2 with gg = 2. The positive value of θab\theta_{ab} indicates predominant FM in-plane interactions. The difference in magnitude of θab\theta_{ab} and θc\theta_{c} may be due to the increased magnitude of FM fluctuations in the abab plane compared to those along the cc axis as discussed above.

Table 2: The TT–independent contribution to the susceptibility χ0\chi_{0}, Curie constant per mol CαC_{\alpha} for fields in the α=ab,c\alpha=ab,c directions, effective moment per Eu μ(μB/Eu)eff=8C\mu{\rm{}_{eff}(\mu_{B}/Eu)}=\sqrt{8C} and Weiss temperature θpα\theta\rm_{p\alpha} obtained from the χ1(T)\chi^{-1}(T) versus TT fits for H=0.1H=0.1 T using Eq. (2).
Field χ0\chi_{0} CαC_{\alpha} μeffα\mu_{\rm eff\alpha} θpα\theta_{\rm p\alpha}
direction (104cm3mol)\rm{\left(10^{-4}~\frac{cm^{3}}{mol}\right)} (cm3Kmol)\rm{\left(\frac{cm^{3}K}{mol}\right)} (μBEu)\rm{\left(\frac{\mu_{B}}{Eu}\right)} (K)
HabH\parallel ab 1.2(3)-1.2(3) 7.538(9) 7.766(4) 2.07(9)
HcH\parallel c 0.2(2)-0.2(2) 7.948(22) 7.97(1) 0.2(2)-0.2(2)

III.3 Heisenberg exchange interactions from MFT model

The Heisenberg exchange interactions between the Eu spins were estimated using a minimal one-dimensional J0J_{0}-J1J_{1}-J2J_{2} MFT model for a helix Johnston2019_J0J1J2 ; Nagamiya_1967 (see Fig. 1). Here J0J_{0} is the sum of the Heisenberg exchange interactions of a representative spin with all other spins in the same abab-plane layer, J1J_{1} is the sum of exchange interactions of a spin with all spins in a nearest layer along the helix axis, and J2J_{2} is the sum of the exchange interactions of a spin with all spins in a next-nearest layer (see Fig. 1). According to this MFT model, these exchange interactions are related to the turn angle kdkd, AFM transition temperature TNT_{\rm N}, and Weiss temperature θp\theta_{\rm p} by Johnston2012 ; Johnston2015

cos(kd)=J14J2,\displaystyle\cos(kd)=-\frac{J_{1}}{4J_{2}}, (4a)
TN\displaystyle T_{\rm N} =\displaystyle= S(S+1)3kB[J0+2J1cos(kd)\displaystyle-\frac{S(S+1)}{3k_{\rm B}}\big{[}J_{0}+2J_{1}\cos(kd) (4b)
+ 2J2cos(2kd)],\displaystyle\hskip 65.04256pt+\ 2J_{2}\cos(2kd)\big{]},
θp\displaystyle\theta_{\rm p} =\displaystyle= S(S+1)3kB(J0+2J1+2J2),\displaystyle-\frac{S(S+1)}{3k_{\rm B}}\left(J_{0}+2J_{1}+2J_{2}\right), (4c)

where a positive (negative) JJ corresponds to net AFM (FM) interactions. The values of J0J_{0}, J1J_{1}, and J2J_{2} were estimated using the parameters S=7/2,TN=6.7K,θp=θpave=1.31(13)S=7/2,\ T_{\rm N}=6.7\ {\rm K},\ \theta_{\rm p}=\theta_{\rm p\,ave}=1.31(13) K (spherical average), and kd=0.66π120kd=0.66\pi\approx 120^{\circ}, yielding

J0/kB=0.934(8)K(FM),\displaystyle J_{0}/k_{\rm B}=-0.934(8)~\rm{K(FM)}, (5a)
J1/kB=0.228(6)K(AFM),\displaystyle J_{1}/k_{\rm B}=0.228(6)~\rm{K(AFM)}, (5b)
J2/kB=0.114(2)K(AFM).\displaystyle J_{2}/k_{\rm B}=0.114(2)~\rm{K(AFM)}. (5c)

The FM value of J0J_{0} and AFM values of J1J_{1} and J2J_{2} are consistent with a cc-axis helical spin structure with the moments ferromagnetically-aligned in each abab plane layer Johnston2012 ; Johnston2015 . This model is also consistent with the Weiss-temperature anisotropy in Table 2. The alternative possibility of a stacked triangular-lattice planar array of ordered moments with an angle of 120\approx 120^{\circ} between adjacent moments in each layer is less likely because in that case one would expect θab\theta_{ab} to be AFM (negative) instead of positive (FM) as given in Table 2.

III.4 Magnetization versus applied magnetic field isotherms

Refer to caption
Figure 8: Field dependence of magnetic isotherms measured at different temperatures when the applied field is (a) in the abab plane and (b) along the cc axis.
Refer to caption
Figure 9: Magnetization MabM_{ab} and McM_{c} as a function of the applied field HH at temperature T=2T=2 K. Inset: dM/dHdM/dH versus HH at TT = 2 K for both field directions illustrating in more detail the behavior near the respective critical fields.
Refer to caption
Figure 10: (a) Magnetization versus field M(H)M(H) isotherms at low fields for different temperatures with HabH\parallel ab and HcH\parallel c. (b) The derivative dM/dHdM/dH versus HH at T=1.8T=1.8 K for both field directions. (c) dM/dHdM/dH versus HH at different temperatures for HabH\parallel ab.

Isothermal magnetization MM versus HH data measured at different temperatures for HabH\parallel ab and HcH\parallel c are shown in Figs. 8(a) and 8(b), respectively. The M(H)M(H) data at T=2T=2 K are shown in Fig. 9 separately for the two different field directions for comparison. On the scale of the figures, Mab(H)M_{ab}(H) and Mc(H)M_{c}(H) at 2 K increase linearly with increasing HH up to the respective critical fields Hcab=2.75(2)H_{{\rm c}\,ab}=2.75(2) T and Hcc=4.0(3)H_{{\rm c}\,c}=4.0(3) T, above which the crystal enters the PM state and MM begins to saturate. At T=2T=2 K, Mab(H)M_{ab}(H) and Mc(H)M_{c}(H) attain values of Mc6.80(5)μBM_{\rm c}\approx 6.80(5)~\mu_{\rm B}/Eu at H=5.5H=5.5 T. In view of the data in Table 2 obtained by fitting the χ(T)\chi(T) data, the M(H)M(H) data for both field directions should indeed saturate to about 7μB7~\mu_{\rm B}/Eu at sufficiently high fields. Hysteresis in M(H)M(H) was not observed for either of the two applied field directions (not shown), consistent with the magnetic structure not having a glassy or FM component. These results are also consistent with the predictions of MFT for a cc-axis helix with a turn angle of 120 Johnston2015 ; Johnston2017 ; Johnston2017_2 . For the in-plane Mab(H)M_{ab}(H) with this turn angle, a smooth crossover between a helix and a fan phase is predicted even though the theoretical prediction in this case is that MHM\propto H below saturation. This prediction is indeed in apparent agreement with the data in Fig. 8(a) and the low-field data at T=1.8T=1.8 K displayed in Fig. 10(a).

However, a detailed analysis of these Mab(H)M_{ab}(H) data reveal a nonlinearity with a peak at H300H\approx 300 Oe from the derivative plot dMab/dHdM_{ab}/dH versus HH in Fig. 10(b) that is not predicted by the MFT, whereas the corresponding cc-axis data in this figure show no such feature in agreement with MFT. The deviation from linearity in the low-HH Mab(H)M_{ab}(H) data is also temperature dependent as seen from Fig. 10(c). The deviation is strongest at TT = 1.8 K, diminishes with increasing TT, and vanishes for T>TNT>T_{\rm N}. All these isothermal low-HH M(H)M(H) measurements were carried out on warming after quenching the superconducting magnet to avoid remanent fields in the magnet that might affect the results. Although not predicted by MFT for kd=2π/3kd=2\pi/3 rad, the nonlinearity of Mab(H)M_{ab}(H) is consistent with expectation for a noncollinear AFM structure with the moments aligned in the abab plane. It would be interesting to investigate by neutron diffraction how the magnetic structure changes in the low-field region below 1000 Oe.

IV Heat capacity and HH_{\perp}-TT Phase Diagram

Refer to caption
Figure 11: Low-temperature heat capacity Cp/TC_{\rm p}/T versus temperature TT of YbMg2Bi2 from 2 to 10 K. Two fits are shown. The two-term fit is the conventional one in Eq. (6) containing the Sommerfeld coefficient γ\gamma and a single Debye lattice heat capacity term. This behavior obviously does not fit the data. The four-term fit in Eq. (7) with the fitted parameters in Eq. (8) includes two additional lattice heat-capacity terms.

In this section we use the heat capacity Cp(T)C_{\rm p}(T) of the nonmagnetic compound YbMg2Bi2 as a reference for the lattice heat capacity of EuMg2Bi2. The data for single-crystal YbMg2Bi2 at low TT are shown in Fig. 11, plotted as Cp/TC_{\rm p}/T versus T2T^{2}. For most nonmagnetic materials, the behavior at low temperatures is described by the expression

CpT=γ+βT2,\displaystyle\frac{C_{\rm p}}{T}=\gamma+\beta T^{2}, (6)

where γ\gamma is the Sommerfeld coefficient associated with degenerate itinerant charge carriers and β\beta is the coefficient of the T3T^{3} term in the low-TT limit of the Debye lattice heat capacity. However, from Fig. 11 this two-term fit does not fit the data at all. Furthermore, it yields an unphysical negative value for γ\gamma. In order to obtain a good fit to the data below 10 K we added two additional lattice heat capacity terms according to

CpT=γ+βT2+δT4+εT6.\displaystyle\frac{C_{\rm p}}{T}=\gamma+\beta T^{2}+\delta T^{4}+\varepsilon T^{6}. (7)

An excellent fit to the data was obtained by this expression as illustrated in Fig. 11 where

γ=0.2(9)mJmolK2,β=0.6(1)mJmolK4,\displaystyle\gamma=-0.2(9)~{\rm\frac{mJ}{mol\,K^{2}}},\quad\beta=0.6(1)~{\rm\frac{mJ}{mol\,K^{4}}}, (8)
δ=35(3)μJmolK6,ε=0.15(2)μJmolK8.\displaystyle\delta=35(3)~{\rm\frac{\mu J}{mol\,K^{6}}},\quad\varepsilon=-0.15(2)~{\rm\frac{\mu J}{mol\,K^{8}}}.

The value of ΘD\Theta_{\rm D} is obtained from β\beta according to

ΘD=(12π4nR5β)1/3,\displaystyle\Theta_{\rm D}=\left(\frac{12\pi^{4}nR}{5\beta}\right)^{1/3}, (9)

where nn is the number of atoms per formula unit (n=5n=5 here) and RR is the molar gas constant, yielding ΘD=255(15)\Theta_{\rm D}=255(15) K. It is notable that γ=0\gamma=0 to within its error. Therefore below we assume γ=0\gamma=0 when evaluating the heat capacity of EuMg2Bi2.

Refer to caption
Figure 12: (a) Zero-field heat-capacity CpC_{\rm p} versus temperature TT of EuMg2Bi2 and YbMg2Bi2 single crystals. The data for the two compounds are hardly distinguishable above 20 K. Inset: expanded low-temperature region around TNT_{\rm N} of EuMg2Bi2. The lines are guides to the eye. Cp(T)C_{\rm p}(T) of (b) YbMg2Bi2 and (c) EuMg2Bi2 along with the respective fits by the Debye model (dashed curves) and by the sum of Debye and Einstein terms (solid curves).
Table 3: Fitting parameters in Eqs. (10)–(12) from fits of the lattice heat capacities of YbMg2Bi2 from 2 to 300 K and EuMg2Bi2 from 25 to 300 K.
Compound ΘD\Theta_{\rm D} ΘE\Theta_{\rm E} α\alpha
(K) (K)
YbMg2Bi2 309(5) 75(2) 0.37(1)
EuMg2Bi2 305(10) 77(5) 0.38(3)

The zero-field single-crystal heat capacities Cp(T)C_{\rm p}(T) of EuMg2Bi2 and the nonmagnetic analogue YbMg2Bi2 measured in the temperature range 1.8–300 K are plotted in Fig. 12(a). The CpC_{\rm p} of EuMg2Bi2 exhibits a pronounced peak at TNT_{\rm N} = 6.7 K as evident from the inset of Fig. 12(a). The Cp(T)C_{\rm p}(T) attains values of 122.5\approx 122.5 J/mol K and 121\approx 121 J/mol K at T=300T=300 K for EuMg2Bi2 and YbMg2Bi2, respectively. These values are close to the classical Dulong-Petit limit due to acoustic phonon modes CV=3nR=124.7C_{\rm V}=3nR=124.7 J/mol K with n=5n=5 being the number of atoms per formula unit of the above compounds.

We fitted the Cp(T)C_{\rm p}(T) data in the temperature regions 25–300 K for EuMg2Bi2 and 2–300 K for YbMg2Bi2 by the Debye lattice heat capacity prediction

Cp(T)\displaystyle C_{\rm p}(T) =\displaystyle= nCVDebye(T),\displaystyle nC_{\rm V\,Debye}(T), (10)
CVDebye(T)\displaystyle C_{\rm V\,Debye}(T) =\displaystyle= 9R(TΘD)30ΘD/Tx4ex(ex1)2𝑑x,\displaystyle 9R\left(\frac{T}{\Theta_{\rm D}}\right)^{3}\int_{0}^{\Theta_{\rm D}/T}\frac{x^{4}e^{x}}{(e^{x}-1)^{2}}dx,

where ΘD\Theta_{\rm D} is the Debye temperature. The Padé approximant for the Debye function in Ref. Goetsch_2012 was used for the fits. As seen from dashed curves in Figs. 12(b) and 12(c), the lattice heat capacity is not described well by the Debye model. Much better fits were obtained by including an Einstein lattice contribution to the fits according to

Cp(T)\displaystyle C_{\rm p}(T) =\displaystyle= (1α)CVDebye+αCVEinstein,\displaystyle(1-\alpha)C_{\rm V\,Debye}+\alpha C_{\rm V\,Einstein}, (11)

where

CVEinstein(T)\displaystyle C_{\rm V\,Einstein}(T) =\displaystyle= 3R(ΘET)2eΘE/T(eΘE/T1)2\displaystyle 3R\left(\frac{\Theta_{\rm E}}{T}\right)^{2}\frac{e^{\Theta_{\rm E}/T}}{(e^{\Theta_{\rm E}/T}-1)^{2}} (12)

with ΘE\Theta_{\rm E} being the Einstein temperature. The parameter α\alpha determines the fraction of the Einstein contribution to the total lattice heat capacity. Very good fits of the Cp(T)C_{\rm p}(T) data by Eq. (11) were achieved, as depicted by the solid curves in Figs. 12(b) and 12(c). The fitted parameters are listed in Table 3. The Debye temperatures of 300\sim 300 K are much larger than the values of 207 K and 211 K previously reported from Debye fits to the data from 20 to 200 K for YbMg2Bi2 and EuMg2Bi2, respectively May2011 . The low Einstein temperatures of 75\sim 75 K suggest the presence of low-frequency optic modes associated with the heavy Bi and/or Yb or Eu atoms, respectively, as also suggested from Fig. 11.

Refer to caption
Figure 13: Temperature TT dependence of (a) the magnetic component of the heat capacity CmagC_{\rm{mag}}, (b) Cmag/TC_{\rm{mag}}/T, and (c) the magnetic entropy SmagS_{\rm{mag}} obtained from the Cmag(T)/TC_{\rm mag}(T)/T data in (b) using Eq. (16). The solid black lines in (a) and (b) represent the predictions of MFT in Eqs. (15) for S=7/2S=7/2 and TN=6.7T_{\rm N}=6.7 K. In (b), the experimental data for T2T\geq 2 K were extrapolated to T=0.7T=0.7 K using a spline fit where it intersected the MFT prediction as shown by the dashed blue line and then the MFT prediction was used below 0.7 K.

The magnetic contribution Cmag(T)C_{\rm{mag}}(T) to the heat capacity of EuMg2Bi2 was obtained by subtracting the Cp(T)C_{\rm p}(T) data of the nonmagnetic analogue YbMg2Bi2 in Fig. 12(a) after correcting for the difference in formula weights, where the temperature scale TT^{*} of YbMg2Bi2 was obtained as

T=T(MEuMg2Bi2/MYbMg2Bi2)1/2,\displaystyle T^{\ast}=\frac{T}{(M_{\rm EuMg_{2}Bi_{2}}/M_{\rm YbMg_{2}Bi_{2}})^{1/2}}, (13)

where TT is the experimentally-measured temperature. The Cmag(T)C_{\rm{mag}}(T) was also estimated by subtracting the lattice contribution obtained from the fit of the Cp(T)C_{\rm p}(T) data by Eq. (11). Figure 13(a) shows Cmag(T)C_{\rm{mag}}(T) obtained using the two different lattice heat capacity estimates. The two calculations of Cmag(T)C_{\rm mag}(T) agree very well below TNT_{\rm N}, but the data above TNT_{\rm N} obtained using the measured lattice contribution of YbMg2Bi2 is physically more likely.

According to MFT, the discontinuity in CmagC_{\rm{mag}} at T=TNT=T_{\rm N} is given by Johnston2015

ΔC=mag5S(1+S)1+2S+2S2R.\displaystyle\Delta C{\rm{}_{mag}}=\frac{5S(1+S)}{1+2S+2S^{2}}R. (14)

The jump ΔCmag\Delta C_{\rm mag} in CmagC_{\rm{mag}} for EuMg2Bi2 at TNT_{\rm N} = 6.7 K expected from Eq. (14) is 20.14 J/mol K for S=7/2S=7/2. The experimentally-observed jump ΔCmag(TN)25\Delta C_{\rm{mag}}(T_{\rm N})\approx 25 J/mol K is significantly larger than the MFT prediction. This difference arises because the observed λ\lambda shape of Cmag(T)C_{\rm mag}(T) below TNT_{\rm N} is different from step shape of the MFT prediction shown as the solid curve in Fig. 13(a) obtained as follows.

The magnetic contribution Cmag(T,H=0)C_{\rm mag}(T,H=0) to the heat capacity according to MFT is given by Johnston2015

Cmag(t)R\displaystyle\frac{C_{\rm{mag}}(t)}{R} =\displaystyle= 3Sμ¯02(t)(S+1)t[(S+1)t3BS[y0(t)]1],\displaystyle\frac{3S\bar{\mu}_{0}^{2}(t)}{(S+1)t[\frac{(S+1)t}{3B^{\prime}_{S}[y_{0}(t)]}-1]}, (15a)
μ¯0(t)\displaystyle\bar{\mu}_{0}(t) =\displaystyle= BS[y0(t)],\displaystyle B_{S}[y_{0}(t)], (15b)
y0(t)\displaystyle y_{0}(t) =\displaystyle= 3μ¯0(t)(S+1)t,\displaystyle\frac{3\bar{\mu}_{0}(t)}{(S+1)t}, (15c)
t\displaystyle t =\displaystyle= T/TN(H=0),\displaystyle T/T_{\rm N}(H=0), (15d)

where μ¯0(t)μ0(t)/μsat\bar{\mu}_{0}(t)\equiv\mu_{0}(t)/\mu_{\rm sat} is the reduced ordered moment versus tt in H=0H=0, μsat=gSμB\mu_{\rm sat}=gS\mu_{\rm B} is the saturation moment of the spin, BS(y)B_{S}(y) is Brillouin function, and BS(y0)dBS(y)dy|y=y0B^{\prime}_{S}(y_{0})\equiv\frac{dB_{S}(y)}{dy}\big{|}_{y=y_{0}}. The solid black curve in Fig. 13(a) represents the Cmag(T)C_{\rm{mag}}(T) predicted by MFT for TN=6.7T_{\rm N}=6.7 K and S=7/2S=7/2. The disagreements with the data in Fig. 13(a) arise from neglect of dynamic magnetic fluctuations and correlations in MFT.

The zero-field magnetic entropy Smag(T)S_{\rm{mag}}(T) for EuMg2Bi2 in Fig. 13(c) was obtained from the zero-field Cmag(T)/TC_{\rm{mag}}(T)/T data in Fig. 13(b) using the relation

Smag(T)=0TCmag(T)T𝑑T.\displaystyle S_{\rm mag}(T)=\int_{0}^{T}\frac{C_{\rm{mag}}(T^{\prime})}{T^{\prime}}dT^{\prime}. (16)

The Cmag(T)C_{\rm{mag}}(T) data in the TT range 0–1.8 K for which we have no data was estimated as described in the caption to Fig. 13 and shown as the dashed blue line in Fig. 13(b). The Smag(T)S_{\rm{mag}}(T) calculations for EuMg2Bi2 using the above two methods of calculating Cmag(T)C_{\rm{mag}}(T) are shown in Fig. 13(c). The Smag(T)S_{\rm{mag}}(T) calculated using the Debye-Einstein lattice contribution saturates at high TT to a value of 18.2 J/mol K, which is slightly larger than the theoretical high-TT limit Smag=Rln(2S+1)=17.29S_{\rm mag}=R{\rm ln}(2S+1)=17.29 J/mol K for S=7/2S=7/2. On the other hand, when using the YbMg2Bi2 lattice contribution, SmagS_{\rm{mag}} saturates to a value of 16.7 J/mol K which is slightly smaller than the theoretical prediction. The SmagS_{\rm{mag}} reaches to 94% and 91% of Rln(8)R\ln(8) at TNT_{\rm N} in these two calculations, respectively. The nonzero contributions to Cmag(T)C_{\rm mag}(T) and Smag(T)S_{\rm mag}(T) above TNT_{\rm N} arise from dynamic short-range magnetic order. This feature has also been observed in other spin-7/2 Eu+2 helical AFM systems Sangeetha_EuCo2P2_2016 ; Sangeetha_EuCo2As2_2018 ; Sangeetha_EuNi2As2_2019 .

Refer to caption
Figure 14: Low-temperature heat capacity Cp(T)C_{\rm p}(T) versus temperature TT of EuMg2Bi2 in different applied magnetic fields applied along the cc axis of the crystal as listed. The arrow on the right crosses the data for increasing magnetic fields from 0 to 9 T.
Refer to caption
Figure 15: Magnetic HH_{\perp}-TT phase diagram constructed using the Cp(H,T)C_{\rm p}(H_{\perp},T) shown in Fig. 14, where HH_{\perp} is defined to be the field along the cc axis, perpendicular to the abab plane in which the moments order in zero field. The red curve is a fit to the critical-field Hc(T)H_{\rm c\perp}(T) data by Eq. (17) for spin S=7/2S=7/2 and the fitted parameters are listed in the figure. Data obtained from M(Hc,T)M(H_{\rm c\perp},T) and ρ(Hc,T)\rho(H_{\rm c\perp},T) measurements have also been plotted. This fit separates the phase diagram into two regions which are the helical antiferromagnetic (AFM) and paramagnetic (PM) regions. The three special points in the ρ(T)\rho(T) data at low fields between 4.3 and 5.2 K (T2T_{2}, crosses) and at 3.7 K (T3T_{3}, up-triangle) are associated with phase transitions of unknown origin that were not detected in the other measurements.
Refer to caption
Figure 16: (a) Zero-field abab-plane normalized resistivity (ρ(T)/ρ(300K)\rho(T)/\rho(300\rm K)) of EuMg2Bi2 in the temperature region 2–300 K. The data of the present work (black open circles) are compared with the earlier published data of the crystals of the same compound grown in a similar way (blue open triangles May2012 ) and different way (red open squares Kabir2019 ). The arrows indicate positions of resistivity minima at TminT_{\rm min}, absent in the samples with lowest residual resistivity above TNT_{N}. Inset: expanded low-temperature region close to TNT_{\rm N}. (b) Low-temperature region of the normalized resistivity ρ(T)/ρ(100K)\rho(T)/\rho(100\rm K) measured for different applied magnetic fields with HcH\parallel c. The long arrow points from low- to high-field data. Short arrows indicate features at the highest TT anomaly coinciding for low fields with TNT_{N}, cross-arrows (crosses in the phase diagram in Fig. 15) and up-triangle arrow (up-triangle in Fig. 15) point to additional features in ρ(T)\rho(T) observed at temperatures below TNT_{\rm N}.

The variation of Cp(T)C_{\rm p}(T) with magnetic field HH_{\perp} defined to be the field applied along the cc axis, perpendicular to the zero-field abab ordering plane, is shown in Fig. 14. Here we define the field along the cc axis as HH_{\perp} so as not to confuse the notation with the critical field HcH_{\rm c} and the cc-axis field HcH_{c}. Due to the constraints of the PPMS used to measure CpC_{\rm p}, it was not possible to measure Cp(T)C_{\rm p}(T) with HabH\parallel ab. As seen from Fig. 14, TNT_{\rm N} shifts to lower temperature with increasing HH_{\perp} and also the jump in CpC_{\rm p} at TNT_{\rm N} decreases, where TNT_{\rm N} is defined as the temperature of the peak in the heat capacity because of the contribution of dynamic short-range magnetic ordering to CmagC_{\rm mag} above TNT_{\rm N}.

From the data in Fig. 14, one could plot TNT_{\rm N} versus the field HH_{\perp} or the critical field HcH_{\rm c\perp} versus TT. We use the latter scaling because for a helical antiferromagnet, Hc(t)H_{c\perp}(t) is given theoretically by MFT as Johnston2015

Hc(t)=Hc(t=0)μ¯0(t),\displaystyle H_{c\perp}(t)=H_{c\perp}(t=0)\bar{\mu}_{0}(t), (17)

where μ¯0(t)\bar{\mu}_{0}(t) is calculated using Eqs. (15). A fit of the HcH_{c\perp} versus TT data in Fig. 15 by Eq. (17) yields TN=6.64(2)T_{\rm N}=6.64(2) K and Hc(T=0)=4.0(1)H_{c\perp}(T=0)=4.0(1) T, as shown by the red curve in the figure. This curve divides the phase diagram in the (H,T)(H_{\perp},T) plane into helical AFM and PM regions as shown.

V Electrical Resistivity

The temperature dependence of the abab-plane electrical resistivity measured in the temperature range 2 to 300 K in zero magnetic field is plotted in Fig. 16(a). The data are presented using a normalized ρ(T)/ρ(300K)\rho(T)/\rho(300~\rm K) scale. The resistivity shows a metallic decrease on cooling down to a shallow minimum at Tmin23T_{\rm min}\sim 23 K, followed by a slight increase on further cooling. A sharp resistivity decrease below T=6.75T=6.75 K (transition midpoint) indicates the onset of AFM ordering in the system.

The observed ρ(T)\rho(T) behavior is similar to that reported in similarly-grown crystals, blue triangles in Fig. 16(a) May2012 , but notably different from that reported in the previous study Kabir2019 in which a Sn-flux-grown single crystal was used for the measurements. The shallow minimum in ρ(T)\rho(T) as observed in our study at about 23 K is not observed in similarly-grown samples with higher RRR and is observed at a much higher temperature of 125\sim 125 K, in samples with notably lower RRR. Using the value of resistivity above TNT_{N} as a proxy for ρ(0)\rho(0), the extrapolated residual-resistivity ratio RRR ρ(300\equiv\rho(300 K)/ρ(TN)\rho(T_{\rm N}) increases from 1.14\approx 1.14 in the Sn-flux-grown crystal, to 1.33\approx 1.33 in our crystals and to 1.39\approx 1.39 in the data of Ref. May2012 . Progressively the position of the resistivity minimum shifts to zero. In previous studies of polycrystalline EuMg2Bi2 May2012 the minimum was much more pronounced and located at about 100 K. The slight resistivity increase on cooling is accompanied by a temperature-independent Hall constant May2012 arguing against an activated character of charge transport below the minimum. The minimum was also observed in nonmagnetic CaMg2Bi2, which makes a possible contribution of the Kondo effect Kondoeffect unlikely. We conclude that the most likely reason for the minimum is an onset of Anderson localization Anderson due to the strong effect of disorder in a low carrier-density metal.

The decrease of resistivity below TNT_{\rm N} in both previous studies is notably smaller than in our crystals, and is significantly less sharp. The origin of this discrepancy is unclear and deserve further study. The resistivity decrease below TNT_{\rm N} is governed by a decrease of magnetic entropy Paglione2005 and the sharp feature may be suggestive of the first-order character of the transition. The evolution of the temperature-dependent resistivity with HcH\parallel c is shown in Fig. 16(b). Of special note is the evolution between H=0H=0 T (black) and 0.5 T (red). While the transition with onset at TN=6.93T_{\rm N}=6.93 K in zero field is accompanied by a pretty sharp (full width of 0.4 K) resistivity decrease, the feature at TN=6.85T_{\rm N}=6.85 K [which does not change much in temperature compared to the 0 T curve, as indicated by simple vertical black and red arrows in Fig. 16(b)], the decrease in ρ(T)\rho(T) at 0.5 T is quite small. On further cooling ρ(T)\rho(T) for 0.5 T reveals a second feature [we label it T2=5.1T_{2}=5.1 K and indicate with a cross arrow in Fig. 16(b)], below which the main resistivity decrease happens. A similar T2T_{2} feature is found for the curve in 0.75 T field. The third feature at T3=3.8T_{3}=3.8 K (up-triangle arrow) leads to flattening of the ρ(T)\rho(T) in Hc=0.5H_{c}=0.5 T for T0T\to 0 K. The T3T_{3} is not found for 0.75 T in the temperature range studied. A magnetic field of 1 T suppresses the T2T_{2} feature, but the feature at TNT_{\rm N} remains clearly discernible. With further magnetic field increase to 1.25 T the shape of the anomaly in ρ(T)\rho(T) changes qualitatively, with initial flattening and eventual increase of resistivity on cooling for Hc=2.5H_{c}=2.5 T. A monotonically decreasing ρ(T)\rho(T) as found at 3 T suggests the suppression of TNT_{\rm N} to below the temperature range studied.

We summarize the anomalies in ρ(T,H)\rho(T,H) in the above phase diagram in Fig. 15. For fields below 1 T the feature in ρ(T,H)\rho(T,H) at TNT_{\rm N} (solid blue circles) is in good agreement with the heat capacity (black solid squares) and magnetization (green down-triangles) measurements. For H=1.25H_{\perp}=1.25 T the position of the highest-temperature feature starts to go to zero notably faster than suggested by the magnetization and heat capacity determinations of TNT_{\rm N}. Note that the shape of ρ(T)\rho(T) changes in the same field range.

The position of the T2T_{2} feature (blue crosses in Fig. 15) seems to be smoothly connected to the zero-field TNT_{\rm N} (blue dashed line). The position of the T3T_{3} feature (solid blue up-triangle) does not seem to be connected to any special point in the phase diagram.

The sharpness of the feature at TNT_{\rm N} in zero-field resistivity measurements suggest a first-order character of the transition, and its splitting into two second-order transitions with application of magnetic field. However, this interpretation is not supported by either the χ(T)\chi(T) or Cp(T)C_{\rm p}(T) data in Fig. 5 and the inset of Fig. 12(a), respectively.

The fact that the low-temperature features at T2T_{2} and T3T_{3} are not observed in heat capacity and magnetization measurements may suggest that the features are due to lock-in transitions (transformations of helical order in magnetic field between incommensurate and commensurate on cooling), particularly difficult to observe in thermodynamic measurements due to the minute entropy changes involved Jensen .

VI Summary

In this work, we have investigated the detailed magnetic, thermal, and electronic transport properties of single crystals of the trigonal compound EuMg2Bi2, which has recently been reported to host multiple Dirac states. The magnetic susceptibility shows that the compound undergoes AFM ordering below TN=6.7T_{\rm N}=6.7 K associated with the Eu+2 spins 7/2, as reported earlier.

The magnetic susceptibilities are found to be almost independent of temperature below TNT_{\rm N} for both HcH\parallel c and HabH\parallel ab, where the hexagonal setting of the trigonal structure has lattice parameters a=ba=b and cc. According to molecular field theory (MFT), this behavior strongly suggests that the magnetic structure of EuMg2Bi2 below TNT_{\rm N} is a cc-axis helix, where ferromagnetically-aligned moments in abab planes rotate in a cc axis helical structure by a turn angle of 120\approx 120^{\circ} from plane to plane along the cc axis. Another possible but less probable magnetic structure is a planar structure with in-plane nearest-neighbor Eu spins aligned at 120\approx 120^{\circ} with respect to each other, with such planes stacked along the cc axis. The latter structure is less likely because the calculated value of the net in-plane magnetic exchange interaction J0J_{0} derived from MFT is positive (FM), rather than negative (AFM) as would be expected for the latter structure, and because the Weiss temperature in the Curie-Weiss law is positive (FM-like) for fields in the abab plane.

According to MFT, the c()c~(\perp)-axis magnetization McM_{c} of a cc-axis helix is linear for applied fields from H=0H=0 to the critical field HcH_{{\rm c\perp}} at which the magnetization approaches the saturation magnetization and a second-order transition to the paramagnetic state occurs. For fields applied in the abab plane of a helix with a 120120^{\circ} turn angle, MabM_{ab} is also predicted to be linear from H=0H=0 to the critical field HcabH_{{\rm c}\,ab} at T=0T=0, even though a smooth crossover from a helix to fan phase occurs if the spins are confined to the abab plane. On the full scale of our M(H)M(H) measurement field, these predictions are verified. However, on closer examination, we find that Mab(H)M_{ab}(H) shows a subtle nonlinearity at fields below about 500 Oe. It would be interesting in future work to determine experimentally what change in the magnetic structure this nonlinearity is associated with.

The zero-field heat capacity Cp(T)C_{\rm p}(T) measurement reveals a λ\lambda anomaly at TNT_{\rm N} that shifts to lower temperature with increasing HH. The zero-field magnetic contribution Cmag(T)C_{\rm mag}(T) to Cp(T)C_{\rm p}(T) obtained using two different background subtractions reveals the presence of short-range dynamic magnetic fluctuations both below and above TNT_{\rm N} that contribute to the high-temperature limit of the magnetic entropy. This limit is close to the value expected for Eu spins S=7/2S=7/2.

A sharp drop in the electrical resistivity ρ(T)\rho(T) is observed on cooling below TNT_{\rm N} in zero field. It is replaced by a two-stage resistivity decrease in the smallest applied magnetic fields. This behavior is contrary to the previous studies and deserves further investigation. This behavior is not reflected in the χ(T)\chi(T) or Cp(T)C_{\rm p}(T) data, and to our knowledge has not been observed previously on cooling below TNT_{\rm N} in any other antiferromagnetic material. The drop is linear in temperature in nonzero cc-axis magnetic fields with the temperature width of the drop increasing with increasing field. A resistivity minimum above TNT_{\rm N} was also observed in the ρ(T)\rho(T) data at 23\sim 23 K, which is a significantly lower temperature than that reported earlier in Ref. Kabir2019 . Interestingly, although only one magnetic transition at TNT_{\rm N} is observed in our magnetic and heat capacity data, in addition to the above-noted feature at TNT_{\rm N} the ρ(T)\rho(T) data also reveal another distinct field-dependent anomaly in the magnetic-field range 0.5TH0.750.5~{\rm T}\leq H\leq 0.75 T for T=4.3T=4.3 to 5.25.2 K.

On the basis of the magnetic, thermal, and electronic transport studies, a magnetic phase diagram in the HH-TT plane for fields parallel to the cc axis was constructed that includes the antiferromagnetic and paramagnetic regions. The phase boundary between these two phases is fitted satisfactorily by MFT.

It would be interesting to theoretically investigate the degree and manner to which one or more of our measured properties of single-crystalline EuMg2Bi2 are influenced or even caused by topological features of the band structure. Of particular interest is the origin of the rapid drop in the resistivity on cooling below TNT_{\rm N} in zero field.

Acknowledgements.
We are grateful to P. P. Orth for helpful comments on the manuscript. The authors thank J. Jensen for useful discussion. This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering. Ames Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Iowa State University under Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11358.

References

  • (1) Xiao-Liang Qi, Yong-Shi Wu, and Shou-Cheng Zhang, Topological quantization of the spin Hall effect in two-dimensional paramagnetic semiconductors, Phys. Rev. B 74, 085308 (2006).
  • (2) Chao-Xing Liu, Xiao-Liang Qi, X. Dai, Z. Fang, and Shou-Cheng Zhang, Quantum Anomalous Hall Effect in Hg1-yMnyTe Quantum Wells, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 146802 (2008).
  • (3) R. Yu, W. Zhang, Hai-Jun Zhang, Shou-Cheng Zhang, X. Dai, Z. Fang, Quantized Anomalous Hall Effect in Magnetic Topological Insulators, Science 329, 61 (2010).
  • (4) Cui-Zu Chang, J. Zhang, X. Feng, J. Shen, Z. Zhang, M. Guo, K. Li, Y. Ou, P. Wei, Li-Li Wang, Zhong-Qing Ji, Y. Feng, S. Ji, X. Chen, J. Jia, X. Dai, Z. Fang, Shou-Cheng Zhang, K. He, Y. Wang, L. Lu, Xu-Cun Ma, Qi-Kun Xue, Experimental Observation of the Quantum Anomalous Hall Effect in a Magnetic Topological Insulator, Science 340, 167 (2013).
  • (5) Chao-Xing Liu, Shou-Cheng Zhang, and Xiao-Liang Qi, The Quantum Anomalous Hall Effect: Theory and Experiment, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 7, 301 (2016).
  • (6) A. M. Essin, J. E. Moore, and D. Vanderbilt, Magnetoelectric Polarizability and Axion Electrodynamics in Crystalline Insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 146805 (2009).
  • (7) R. Li, J. Wang, Xiao-Liang Qi and Shou-Cheng Zhang, Dynamical axion field in topological magnetic insulators, Nat. Phys. 6, 284 (2010).
  • (8) Yea-Lee Lee, H. C. Park, J. Ihm, and Young-Woo Son, Manifestation of axion electrodynamics through magnetic ordering on edges of a topological insulator, PNAS 112, 11514 (2015).
  • (9) L. Wu, M. Salehi, N. Koirala, J. Moon, S. Oh, N. P. Armitage, Quantized Faraday and Kerr rotation and axion electrodynamics of a 3D topological insulator, Science 354, 1124 (2016).
  • (10) Seung-Hwan Do, Sang-Youn Park, J. Yoshitake, J. Nasu, Y. Motome, Y. S. Kwon, D. T. Adroja, D. J. Voneshen, K. Kim, T.-H. Jang, J.-H. Park, Kwang-Yong Choi, and S. Ji, Majorana fermions in the Kitaev quantum spin system α\alpha-RuCl3, Nature 13, 1079 (2017).
  • (11) A. R. Akhmerov, J. Nilsson, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Electrically Detected Interferometry of Majorana Fermions in a Topological Insulator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 216404 (2009).
  • (12) A. Cook and M. Franz, Majorana fermions in a topological-insulator nanowire proximity-coupled to an s-wave superconductor, Phys. Rev. B 84, 201105(R) (2011).
  • (13) Jin-Peng Xu, Mei-Xiao Wang, Z. L. Liu, Jian-Feng Ge, X. Yang, C. Liu, Z. A. Xu, D. Guan, C. L. Gao, D. Qian, Y. Liu, Qiang-Hua Wang, Fu-Chun Zhang, Qi-Kun Xue, and Jin-Feng Jia, Experimental Detection of a Majorana Mode in the core of a Magnetic Vortex inside a Topological Insulator-Superconductor Bi2Te3/NbSe2 Heterostructure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 017001 (2015).
  • (14) L. Fu and C. L. Kane, Topological insulators with inversion symmetry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 045302 (2007).
  • (15) M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Colloquium: Topological insulators, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 3045 (2010).
  • (16) J. E. Moore, The birth of topological insulators, Nature 464, 194 (2010).
  • (17) Xiao-Liang Qi and Shou-Cheng Zhang, Topological insulators and superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 3045 (2011).
  • (18) Y. Ando, Topological Insulator Materials, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 82, 102001 (2013).
  • (19) Y. Tokura, K. Yasuda, and A. Tsukazaki , Magnetic topological insulators, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 126 (2019).
  • (20) Xiao-Liang Qi, T. L. Hughes, and Shou-Cheng Zhang, Topological field theory of time-reversal invariant insulators, Phys. Rev. B 78, 195424 (2008).
  • (21) I. Garate and M. Franz, Inverse Spin-Galvanic Effect in the Interface between a Topological Insulator and a Ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 146802 (2010).
  • (22) Su-Yang Xu, M. Neupane, C. Liu, D. Zhang, A. Richardella, L. A. Wray, N. Alidoust, M. Leandersson, T. Balasubramanian, J. Sánchez-Barriga, O. Rader, G. Landolt, B. Slomski, J. H. Dil, J. Osterwalder, Tay-Rong Chang, Horng-Tay Jeng, H. Lin, A. Bansil, N. Samarth, and M. Z. Hasan, Hedgehog spin texture and Berry’s phase tuning in a magnetic topological insulator, Nature 8, 616 (2012).
  • (23) W. A. Fertig, D. C. Johnston, L. E. DeLong, R. W. McCallum, M. B. Maple, and B. T. Matthias, Destruction of Superconductivity at the Onset of Long-Range Magnetic Order in the Compound ErRh4B4, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 987 (1977).
  • (24) R. Nagarajan, C, Mazumdar, Z. Hossain, S. K. Dhar, K. V. Gopalakrishnan, L. C. Gupta, C. Godart, B. D. Padalia, and R. Vijayaraghavan, Bulk superconductivity at an elevated temperature (Tc12T_{c}\cong 12 K) in a nickel containing alloy system Y-Ni-B-C, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 274 (1994).
  • (25) K. Ghosh, S. Ramakrishnan, S. K. Dhar, S. K. Malik, G. Chandra, V. K. Pecharsky, K. A. Gschneidner, Jr., Z. Hu, and W. B. Yelon, Crystal structures and low-temperature behaviors of the heavy-fermion compounds CeRuGe3 and Ce3Ru4Ge13\rm{Ce_{3}Ru_{4}Ge_{13}} containing both trivalent and tetravalent cerium, Phys. Rev. B 52, 7267 (1995).
  • (26) N. J. Curro, P. C. Hammel, P. G. Pagliuso, J. L. Sarrao, J. D. Thompson, and Z. Fisk, Evidence for spiral magnetic order in the heavy fermion material CeRhIn5, Phys. Rev. B 62, R6100(R) (2000).
  • (27) M. F. Hundley, J. L. Sarrao, J. D. Thompson, R. Movshovich, M. Jaime, C. Petrovic, and Z. Fisk, Unusual Kondo behavior in the indium-rich heavy-fermion antiferromagnet Ce3Pt4In13\rm{Ce_{3}Pt_{4}In_{13}}, Phys. Rev. B 65, 024401 (2001).
  • (28) A. Sakai and S. Nakatsuji, Strong valence fluctuation effects in SmTr2Tr_{2}Al20 (TrTr = Ti, V, Cr), Phys. Rev. B 84, 201106(R) (2011).
  • (29) H. Yamaoka, Y. Ikeda, I. Jarrige, N. Tsujii, Y. Zekko, Y. Yamamoto, J. Mizuki, J.-F. Lin, N. Hiraoka, H. Ishii, K.-D. Tsuei, T. C. Kobayashi, F. Honda, and Y. Onuki, Role of Valence Fluctuations in the Superconductivity of Ce122 Compounds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 086403 (2014).
  • (30) V. K. Pecharsky and K. A. Gschneidner, Jr., Giant Magnetocaloric Effect in Gd5(Si2Ge2)\rm{Gd_{5}(Si_{2}Ge_{2})}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 4494 (1997).
  • (31) S. Pakhira, C. Mazumdar, R. Ranganathan, S. Giri, and M. Avdeev, Large magnetic cooling power involving frustrated antiferromagnetic spin-glass state in R2R_{2}NiSi3 (RR = Gd, Er), Phys. Rev. B 94, 104414 (2016).
  • (32) S. Pakhira, C. Mazumdar, R. Ranganathan, and M. Avdeev, Magnetic frustration induced large magnetocaloric efect in the absence of long range magnetic order, Sci. Rep. 7, 7367 (2017).
  • (33) K. H. J. Buschow and H. J. van Daal, Evidence for the Presence of the kondo effect in the Compound CeAl2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 408 (1969).
  • (34) D. Gignoux and J. C. Gomez-Sal, Competition between the Kondo effect and exchange interactions in the CeNixPt1-x compounds, Phys. Rev. B 30, 3967 (1984).
  • (35) K. Ishida, K. Okamoto, Y. Kawasaki, Y. Kitaoka, O. Trovarelli, C. Geibel, and F. Steglich, YbRh2Si2\rm{YbRh_{2}Si_{2}}: Spin Fluctuations in the Vicinity of a Quantum Critical Point at Low Magnetic Field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 107202 (2002).
  • (36) J. Arndt, O. Stockert, K. Schmalzl, E. Faulhaber, H. S. Jeevan, C. Geibel, W. Schmidt, M. Loewenhaupt, and F. Steglich, Spin Fluctuations in Normal State CeCu2Si2\rm{CeCu_{2}Si_{2}} on Approaching the Quantum Critical Point, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 246401 (2011).
  • (37) M. Hirschberger, S. Kushwaha, Z. Wang, Q. Gibson, S. Liang, C. A. Belvin, B. A. Bernevig, R. J. Cava, and N. P. Ong, The chiral anomaly and thermopower of Weyl fermions in the half-Heusler GdPtBi, Nat. Mater. 15, 1161 (2016).
  • (38) A. Wang, I. Zaliznyak, W. Ren, L. Wu, D. Graf, V. O. Garlea, J. B. Warren, E. Bozin, Y. Zhu, and C. Petrovic, Magnetotransport study of Dirac fermions in YbMnBi2 antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B 94, 165161 (2016).
  • (39) A. F. May, M. A. McGuire, and B. C. Sales, Effect of Eu magnetism on the electronic properties of the candidate Dirac material EuMnBi2, Phys. Rev. B 90, 075109 (2014).
  • (40) J.-R. Soh, P. Manuel, N. M. B. Schröter, C. J. Yi, F. Orlandi, Y. G. Shi, D. Prabhakaran, and A. T. Boothroyd, Magnetic and electronic structure of Dirac semimetal candidate EuMnSb2, Phys. Rev. B 100, 174406 (2019).
  • (41) I. Schellenberg, U. Pfannenschmidt, M. Eul, C. Schwickert, and R. Pöttgen, A 121Sb and 151Eu Mössbauer Spectroscopic Investigation of EuCdX22{}_{2}X_{2} (XX = P, As, Sb) and YbCd2Sb2, Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. 637, 1863 (2011).
  • (42) N. H. Jo, B. Kuthanazhi, Y. Wu, E. Timmons, Tae-Hoon Kim, L. Zhou, Lin-Lin Wang, B. G. Ueland, A. Palasyuk, D. H. Ryan, R. J. McQueeney, K. Lee, B. Schrunk, A. A. Burkov, R. Prozorov, S. L. Bud́ko, A. Kaminski, and P. C. Canfield, Manipulating of magnetism in the topological semimetal EuCd2As2, arXiv:2002.10485 (2020).
  • (43) Y. Xu, Z. Song, Z. Wang, H. Weng, and X. Dai, Higher-Order Topology of the Axion Insulator EuIn2As2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 256402 (2019).
  • (44) F. Kabir, M. M. Hosen, F. Cheenicode-Kabeer, A. Aperis, X. Ding, G. Dhakal, K. Dimitri, C. Sims, S. Regmi, L. Persaud, K. Gofryk, P. M. Oppeneer, D. Kaczorowski, and M. Neupane, Observation of multiple Dirac states in a magnetic topological material EuMg2Bi2, arXiv:1912.08645 (2019).
  • (45) A. F. May, M. A. McGuire, D. J. Singh, R. Custelcean, and G. E. Jellison Jr., Structure and Properties of Single Crystalline CaMg2Bi2, EuMg2Bi2, and YbMg2Bi2, Inorg. Chem. 50, 11127 (2011).
  • (46) D. Ramirez, A. Gallagher, R. Baumbach, T. Siegrist, Synthesis and characterization of the divalent samarium Zintl-phases SmMg2Bi2 and SmMg2Sb2, J. Solid. State. Chem. 231, 217 (2015).
  • (47) D. C. Johnston, Magnetic Susceptibility of Collinear and Noncollinear Heisenberg Antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 077201 (2012).
  • (48) D. C. Johnston, Unified molecular field theory for collinear and noncollinear Heisenberg antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 91, 064427 (2015).
  • (49) J. Rodríguez-Carvajal, Recent advances in magnetic structure determination by neutron powder diffraction, Physica B 192, 55 (1993).
  • (50) M. A. Tanatar, A. E. Böhmer, E. I. Timmons, M. Schütt, G. Drachuck, V. Taufour, K. Kothapalli, A. Kreyssig, S. L. Bud́co, P. C. Canfield, R. M. Fernandes, and R. Prozorov, Origin of the Resistivity Anisotropy in the Nematic Phase of FeSe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 127002 (2016).
  • (51) C. Zheng, R. Hoffmann, R. Nesper, and H. G. Von Schnering, Site preferences and bond length differences in CaAl2Si2-type Zintl compounds, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 108, 1876 (1986).
  • (52) T. Katsufuji, S. Mori, M. Masaki, Y. Moritomo, N. Yamamoto, and H. Takagi, Dielectric and magnetic anomalies and spin frustration in hexagonal RRMnO3 (RR = Y, Yb, and Lu), Inorg. Chem. 64, 104419 (2001).
  • (53) P. J. Brown and T. Chatterji, Neutron diffraction and polarimetric study of the magnetic and crystal structures of HoMnO3 and YMnO3, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 18, 10085 (2006).
  • (54) S. Maruyama, H. Tanaka, Y. Narumi, K. Kindo, H. Nojiri, M. Motokawa, and K. Nagata, Susceptibility, Magnetization Process and ESR Studies on the Helical Spin System RbCuCl3, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 70, 859 (2001).
  • (55) D. C. Johnston, Magnetic structure and magnetization of zz-axis helical Heisenberg antiferromagnets with XY anisotropy in high magnetic fields transverse to the helix axis at zero temperature, Phys. Rev. B 99, 214438 (2019).
  • (56) T. Nagamiya, Helical Spin Ordering. 1. Theory of Helical Spin Configurations, in Solid State Physics, Vol. 20, edited by F. Seitz, D. Turnbull, and H. Ehrenreich (Academic Press, New York, 1967), pp. 305–411.
  • (57) D. C. Johnston, Influence of uniaxial single-ion anisotropy on the magnetic and thermal properties of Heisenberg antiferromagnets within unified molecular field theory, Phys. Rev. B 95, 094421 (2017).
  • (58) D. C. Johnston, Magnetic structure and magnetization of helical antiferromagnets in high magnetic fields perpendicular to the helix axis at zero temperature, Phys. Rev. B 96, 104405 (2017).
  • (59) R. J. Goetsch, V. K. Anand, A. Pandey, and D. C. Johnston, Structural, thermal, magnetic, and electronic transport properties of the LaNi2(Ge1-xPx)2 system, Phys. Rev. B 85, 054517 (2012).
  • (60) N. S. Sangeetha, E. Cuervo-Reyes, A. Pandey, and D. C. Johnston, EuCo2P2: A model molecular-field helical Heisenberg antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B 94, 014422 (2016).
  • (61) N. S. Sangeetha, V. K. Anand, E. Cuervo-Reyes, V. Smetana, A.-V. Mudring, and D. C. Johnston, Enhanced moments of Eu in single crystals of the metallic helical antiferromagnet EuCo2-yAs2, Phys. Rev. B 97, 144403 (2018).
  • (62) N. S. Sangeetha, V. Smetana, A.-V. Mudring, and D. C. Johnston, Helical antiferromagnetic ordering in EuNi1.95As2 single crystals, Phys. Rev. B 100, 094438 (2019).
  • (63) A. F. May, M. A. McGuire, D. J. Singh, J. Ma, O. Delaire, A. Huq, W. Cai, and H. Wang, Thermodelectric transport properties of CaMg2Bi2{\rm CaMg_{2}Bi_{2}}, EuMg2Bi2{\rm EuMg_{2}Bi_{2}}, and YbMg2Bi2{\rm YbMg_{2}Bi_{2}}, Phys. Rev. B 85, 035202 (2012).
  • (64) L. Kouwenhoven and L. Glazman, Revival of the Kondo effect, Phys. World 14, 33 (2001).
  • (65) P. W. Anderson, Absence of diffusion in certain random lattices, Phys. Rev. 109, 1492 (1958).
  • (66) J. Paglione, M. A. Tanatar, D. G. Hawthorn, R. W. Hill, F. Ronning, M. Sutherland, L. Taillefer, C. Petrovic, and P. C. Canfield, Heat Transport as a Probe of Electron Scattering by Spin Fluctuations: The Case of Antiferromagnetic CeRhIn5, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 216602 (2005).
  • (67) J. Jensen, Theory of commensurable magnetic structures in holmium, Phys. Rev. B 54, 4021 (1996).