Nonmonotonic residual entropy in diluted spin ice: A comparison between Monte Carlo simulations of diluted dipolar spin ice models and experimental results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spin ice materials, such as ${\mathrm{Dy}}_{2}{\mathrm{Ti}}_{2}{\mathrm{O}}_{7}$ and ${\mathrm{Ho}}_{2}{\mathrm{Ti}}_{2}{\mathrm{O}}_{7}$, are highly frustrated magnetic systems. Their low-temperature strongly correlated state can be mapped onto the proton disordered state of common water ice. As a result, spin ices display the same low-temperature residual Pauling entropy as water ice, at least in calorimetric experiments that are equilibrated over moderately long-time scales. It was found in a previous study [X. Ke et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 137203 (2007)] that, upon dilution of the magnetic rare-earth ions (${\mathrm{Dy}}^{3+}$ and ${\mathrm{Ho}}^{3+}$) by nonmagnetic yttrium (${\mathrm{Y}}^{3+}$) ions, the residual entropy depends nonmonotonically on the concentration of ${\mathrm{Y}}^{3+}$ ions. A quantitative description of the magnetic specific heat of site-diluted spin ice materials can be viewed as a further test aimed at validating the microscopic Hamiltonian description of these systems. In this work, we report results from Monte Carlo simulations of site-diluted microscopic dipolar spin ice models (DSIM) that account quantitatively for the experimental specific-heat measurements, and thus also for the residual entropy, as a function of dilution, for both ${\mathrm{Dy}}_{2\ensuremath{-}x}{\mathrm{Y}}_{x}{\mathrm{Ti}}_{2}{\mathrm{O}}_{7}$ and ${\mathrm{Ho}}_{2\ensuremath{-}x}{\mathrm{Y}}_{x}{\mathrm{Ti}}_{2}{\mathrm{O}}_{7}$. The main features of the dilution physics displayed by the magnetic specific-heat data are quantitatively captured by the diluted DSIM up to 85% of the magnetic ions diluted ($x=1.7$). The previously reported departures in the residual entropy between ${\mathrm{Dy}}_{2\ensuremath{-}x}{\mathrm{Y}}_{x}{\mathrm{Ti}}_{2}{\mathrm{O}}_{7}$ versus ${\mathrm{Ho}}_{2\ensuremath{-}x}{\mathrm{Y}}_{x}{\mathrm{Ti}}_{2}{\mathrm{O}}_{7}$, as well as with a site-dilution variant of Pauling's approximation, are thus rationalized through the site-diluted DSIM. We find for 90% ($x=1.8$) and 95% ($x=1.9$) of the magnetic ions diluted in ${\mathrm{Dy}}_{2\ensuremath{-}x}{\mathrm{Y}}_{x}{\mathrm{Ti}}_{2}{\mathrm{O}}_{7}$ a significant discrepancy between the experimental and Monte Carlo specific-heat results. We discuss possible reasons for this disagreement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".