Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Compares magnetic exchange parameters in NiO and MnO, indicating advanced modeling methods for magnetic materials.
Spin-wave excitations are fundamental to understanding the behavior of magnetic materials and hold promise for future information and communication technologies. Yet, modeling these accurately in transition-metal compounds remains challenging, starting from the self-interaction errors affecting localized and partially filled <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <a:mi>d</a:mi> </a:math> orbitals in density-functional theory (DFT) with (semi)local functionals. In this work, we compare three advanced first-principles approaches for computing magnetic exchange parameters and magnon dispersions in NiO and MnO, all based on a common <b:math xmlns:b="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <b:mrow> <b:mi>DFT</b:mi> <b:mo>+</b:mo> <b:mi>U</b:mi> </b:mrow> </b:math> ground state with Hubbard <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <c:mi>U</c:mi> </c:math> values obtained from density-functional perturbation theory. Two methods extract exchange parameters directly: one via total-energy differences using the four-state mapping ( <d:math xmlns:d="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <d:mrow> <d:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</d:mi> <d:mi>E</d:mi> </d:mrow> </d:math> ), and the other via the magnetic force theorem (MFT) using infinitesimal spin rotations. Magnon dispersions are then obtained from a Heisenberg Hamiltonian through linear spin-wave theory (LSWT). The third approach, time-dependent density-functional perturbation theory with <f:math xmlns:f="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <f:mi>U</f:mi> </f:math> ( <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <g:mrow> <g:mi>TDDFPT</g:mi> <g:mo>+</g:mo> <g:mi>U</g:mi> </g:mrow> </g:math> ), yields magnon dispersions directly from the dynamical spin susceptibility, with exchange parameters fitted , for comparison, via LSWT. Our results show that <h:math xmlns:h="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <h:mrow> <h:mi>TDDFPT</h:mi> <h:mo>+</h:mo> <h:mi>U</h:mi> </h:mrow> </h:math> and the Heisenberg model based on <i:math xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <i:mrow> <i:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</i:mi> <i:mi>E</i:mi> </i:mrow> </i:math> -derived parameters align well with experimental neutron scattering data, whereas the MFT-based approach shows larger discrepancies, possibly due to some inherent approximations and limitations of the particular implementation used. This study benchmarks the accuracy of state-of-the-art first-principles techniques for spin-wave modeling and contributes to advancing reliable computational tools for the study and design of magnetic materials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anonymous et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: