_2=0.1, 0.15$ where EM confirms $R_0 \ll 1$. Results within EM for KL, as shown in Fig. \[figsl5\]b, are even better demonstration for vanishing $R_0$. Here, for $J_2=0$ EM yields quite similar $R(T)$, decreasing and tending towards $R_0 \sim 0$. On the other hand, the effect of finite $J_2 >0$ is well visible and leads towards magnetic LRO with $R_0 \to \infty$ for $J_2 =0.4$.

![ $R(T)$, evaluated within EM for: a) TL with $J_2=0,0.1,0.15$, and b) KL for $J_2 = 0, 0.2, 0.4$.[]{data-label="figsl5"}](figsl5n.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}

Conclusions
===========

The main message (apparently not stressed in previous published studies of the SL models) of presented results for the thermodynamic quantities: the entropy $s(T)$, susceptibility $\chi_0(T)$, and in particular the Wilson ratio $R(T)$, behave similarity in the extended $J_1$-$J_2$ Heisenberg model on TL and KL in their presumed SL regimes. Moreover, results on both lattices follow quite analogous development by varying the nnn exchange $J_2 >0$, whereby the effect is evidently opposite between TL and KL, regarding the magnetic LRO and SL phases [@kolley15].

While above similarities can be extracted already from full-model results obtained via FTLM [@schnack18; @prelovsek18], the introduction of reduced effective model appears crucial for the understanding and useful analytical insight. Apart from offering some numerical advantages of reduced Hilbert space of basis states, essential for ED methods, EM clearly puts into display two (separate) degrees of freedom: a) the effective spin $s=1/2$ degrees ${\bf s}_i$, determining $\chi_0(T)$, but as well the dynamical quantities, as e.g. the dynamical spin structure factor $S({\bf q}, \omega)$ not discussed here [@prelovsek18], b) chirality pseudospin degrees ${\bf \tau}_i$ which do not contribute to $\chi_0(T)$, but enter the entropy $s
_ 2=0.1, 0.15 $ where EM confirms $ R_0 \ll 1$. Results within EM for KL, as shown in Fig.   \[figsl5\]b, are even better presentation for fly $ R_0$. Here, for $ J_2=0 $ EM yields quite similar $ R(T)$, decrease and tend towards $ R_0 \sim 0$. On the other hand, the impression of finite $ J_2 > 0 $ is well visible and precede towards magnetic LRO with $ R_0 \to \infty$ for $ J_2 = 0.4$. 

! [ $ R(T)$, measure within EM for: a) TL with $ J_2=0,0.1,0.15 $, and b) KL for $ J_2 = 0, 0.2, 0.4$.[]{data - label="figsl5"}](figsl5n.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth " } 

 Conclusions 
 = = = = = = = = = = = 

 The independent message (apparently not stressed in former published studies of the SL models) of presented results for the thermodynamic quantities: the entropy $ s(T)$, susceptibility $ \chi_0(T)$, and in especial the Wilson ratio $ R(T)$, behave similarity in the extended $ J_1$-$J_2 $ Heisenberg mannequin on TL and KL in their presumed SL regimes. Moreover, consequence on both lattices follow quite analogous development by varying the nnn exchange $ J_2 > 0 $, whereby the consequence is evidently opposite between TL and KL, regarding the magnetic LRO and SL phases [ @kolley15 ]. 

 While above similarities can be extracted already from full - model results obtained via FTLM [ @schnack18; @prelovsek18 ], the introduction of reduced effective model appears crucial for the agreement and useful analytical penetration. aside from offering some numerical advantages of reduced Hilbert quad of basis states, essential for ED methods, EM intelligibly puts into display two (separate) degrees of freedom: a) the effective spin $ s=1/2 $ degrees $ { \bf s}_i$, determine $ \chi_0(T)$, but as well the dynamical quantities, as e.g. the dynamic spin social organization factor $ S({\bf q }, \omega)$ not discussed here [ @prelovsek18 ], b) chirality pseudospin degrees $ { \bf \tau}_i$ which do not contribute to $ \chi_0(T)$, but enter the entropy $ s
_2=0.1, 0.15$ wjere EM confirms $R_0 \ll 1$. Rtsults within EM yir KL, es showh in Fig. \[wigsl5\]b, are even better demondteatiob for vanishing $R_0$. Here, for $J_2=0$ EM yields wuitt similar $R(T)$, decrxzsing akb tenslng tmxards $R_0 \sim 0$. On the other hand, the effewt oy finite $J_2 >0$ is well visible and leadf towarcs magnetic LRO rith $W_0 \to \pnnty$ for $J_2 =0.4$.

![ $R(T)$, evaluated within EJ for: a) TL with $J_2=0,0.1,0.15$, anc b) KL for $J_2 = 0, 0.2, 0.4$.[]{data-label="flgsl5"}](vigsl5n.eps){width="0.9\colulnwidth"}

Concousijbs
===========

The main mdssage (apparently not atressed in previous published rtudizs of the SO nodfns) of preseited rvsults for thc thermmdynamiv quantities: tme envropt $s(T)$, susceptibility $\cii_0(T)$, and in particulat the Wilsmn ratio $R(T)$, behave winilarhty hn tfw ebtehdxd $N_1$-$J_2$ Heidenuerg model kn TL and KO in their presumed SJ regimes. Morekver, rqstlts on both lattices follow quite analmgohs development by varyibg the nnn exchange $J_2 >0$, whereby the effect is evidently opposite between TL and NL, rejafdiun gye magnetic LRO and SL phases [@kolley15].

While above aikikarities can bc extracted alreadu vrpi full-model rgsults obtzined via FTLM [@schjack18; @prglovsej18], the intwoduvtion of reduced effective nodel appearf crucial for the uuderstanding and usefil analytical insight. A'art fdom offerinh some nujdrical advantager on raduced Hilbert space of bafis statew, esxential for ED meehods, EM cpearln puts into display two (de[arate) deggees of freedom: a) the effective spin $s=1/2$ degreex ${\tf v}_i$, deteriininn $\chi_0(T)$, but as wqll the dynamieal quancities, as e.g. the dynamiral spin strtcture factor $D({\bf q}, \omega)$ iot discufsed herw [@preloxrek18], b) chiralitu pseudosiiu degrees ${\bf \tau}_i$ which do kot cuhtribute to $\chi_0(C)$, vut enter the emtrupy $s
_2=0.1, 0.15$ where EM confirms $R_0 \ll within for KL, shown in Fig. for $R_0$. Here, for EM yields quite $R(T)$, decreasing and tending towards $R_0 0$. On the other hand, the effect of finite $J_2 >0$ is well and leads towards magnetic LRO with $R_0 \to \infty$ for $J_2 =0.4$. ![ evaluated EM a) with $J_2=0,0.1,0.15$, and b) KL for $J_2 = 0, 0.2, 0.4$.[]{data-label="figsl5"}](figsl5n.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"} Conclusions =========== The main message not stressed in previous published studies of the models) of presented results the thermodynamic quantities: the entropy susceptibility and in the ratio behave similarity in extended $J_1$-$J_2$ Heisenberg model on TL and KL in their presumed SL regimes. Moreover, results on both follow quite by varying nnn $J_2 whereby the effect opposite between TL and KL, regarding and SL phases [@kolley15]. While above similarities can extracted already full-model results obtained via FTLM [@schnack18; the introduction of reduced effective model appears crucial the understanding and useful analytical insight. Apart from offering some numerical advantages of reduced Hilbert basis states, essential for methods, EM clearly into two degrees freedom: a) effective spin $s=1/2$ degrees ${\bf s}_i$, determining $\chi_0(T)$, but as well dynamical quantities, as e.g. the dynamical spin structure factor $S({\bf not here [@prelovsek18], b) pseudospin degrees ${\bf \tau}_i$ do contribute to $\chi_0(T)$, but entropy
_2=0.1, 0.15$ where EM confirms $R_0 \ll 1$. Results Within EM foR KL, as ShoWn iN FIg. \[fiGsl5\]b, Are even better dEMonsTration for vanishing $R_0$. HeRe, for $j_2=0$ Em YielDS qUite sImilar $R(t)$, DeCREasInG aNd tEnDInG towaRds $r_0 \sim 0$. On tHe other hanD, thE eFfect of finitE $j_2 >0$ iS well visibLe aNd leads towarDs mAgnetiC LrO wITh $R_0 \to \InfTy$ for $j_2 =0.4$.

![ $R(T)$, evaLUated wIthin EM foR: a) tl with $J_2=0,0.1,0.15$, ANd b) KL foR $j_2 = 0, 0.2, 0.4$.[]{DaTa-laBel="figsl5"}](figsl5n.eps){WIdTH="0.9\columnwidth"}

CoNclusiOnS
===========

thE MAin MesSage (appareNtLy not STressed IN pREVIouS Published studIes of the SL mODelS) of preSeNteD ResultS for tHe THerModynamic quAntiTies: the enTropy $s(t)$, SusceptIBility $\cHi_0(T)$, and In pArtIculAR tHe wilSoN RatIO $R(t)$, beHAve SimilariTy In The exTendED $j_1$-$j_2$ heisEnbErg mOdel oN TL and KL in theIr pResuMEd Sl regiMes. MoReovEr, ResulTs on boTh latTiCes follow quite aNaloGous develOpmEnT by VaRying THe nnn eXchAngE $J_2 >0$, whereBy the efFEct Is EVIDeNtly opposite betweeN Tl ANd kL, regardIng the MAgNeTIc LRO and sL PhaSes [@kOLLey15].

WhIle aBOvE similarIties cAN bE eXtracteD aLready FrOm fUll-Model REsulTs obtaIned via FtLM [@scHNack18; @prelovsek18], tHE introduction OF rEDUcED effEctIve model appEars CRuciAl foR ThE unDErstaNding AnD UsEFul analytical insighT. APart frOm offEring some numeRical advanTAGEs of reduCed HILbERt space of basis StateS, essential FOr ED methOds, EM Clearly pUts into diSPLay two (seParAte) DegReeS OF fReedom: a) the effECTive SpIn $s=1/2$ degrEes ${\Bf s}_i$, detErmIniNg $\cHi_0(T)$, BuT as well thE dynamicAl QuAnTiTieS, as e.g. THe dynamiCaL spIn StrUcturE Factor $s({\bf q}, \oMega)$ NoT dIScuSsed herE [@PrELOvseK18], b) ChIralIty PsEudosPin dEGreEs ${\bf \tau}_I$ which do nOt cONtriBuTe To $\chi_0(T)$, bUt enter the entRoPy $s
_2=0.1, 0.15$ where EM con firms $R_0  \ll1$.  Re su ltswith in EM for KL,a s sh own in Fig. \[figsl5\] b, ar ee venb et ter d emonstr a ti o n  fo rva nis hi n g$R_0$ . H ere, fo r $J_2=0$EMyi elds quite s i mi lar $R(T)$ , d ecreasing an d t ending  t owa r ds $R _0\sim0$. On the ot her hand,  t h e effe c t of fi n i te  $J_ 2 >0$ is well vis i bl e  and leads tow ards m ag n et i c  LR O w ith $R_0 \ to  \inf t y$ for$ J_ 2 = 0.4 $ .

![ $R(T)$,  evaluatedw ith in EMfo r:a ) TL w ith $ J_ 2 =0, 0.1,0.15$,andb) KL for  $J_2=  0, 0.2 ,  0.4$.[ ]{data -la bel ="fi g sl 5" }]( fi g sl5 n .e ps) { wid th="0.9\ co lu mnwid th"} C o nclu sio ns
= ===== =====

The ma inmess a ge(appa rentl y no tstres sed in  prev io us published st udie s of theSLmo del s)  of p r esente d r esu lts for  the th e rmo dy n a m ic  quantities: the e nt r o py  $s(T)$,  susce p ti bi l ity $\ch i_ 0(T )$,a n d inpart i cu lar theWilson ra ti o $R(T) $,  behav esim ila rityi n th e exte nded $J_ 1$-$J _ 2$ Heisenbergm odel on TL an d  K L in thei r p resumed SLregi m es.More o ve r,r esult s onbo t hl attices follow quit eanalog ous d evelopment by  varying t h e nnn exch ange $J _ 2 >0$, whereby  theeffect ise vidently  oppo site bet ween TL a n d  KL, reg ard ing  th e m a g ne tic LRO and S L phas es  [@koll ey1 5].

Wh ile  ab ove  si mi laritiescan be e xt ra ct ed  al ready from ful l- mod el  re sults obtain ed vi a FT LM  [ @ sch nack18; @p r e lovs ek 18 ], t hein trodu ctio n  of  reduce d effecti vem odel  a pp ears cr ucial for the  u nderstandi ng  an d usef u l  analyti cal insight. Apart from offerin g s ome n umer ical adva nta ges of  re d uced H ilbert  spac eofb a sis s t a te s,es sential fo r EDmetho ds , EM  clearl y puts into displa y  tw o (separate)deg rees o ffre e do m : a )t hee f fective spin $s =1/2$ degr ee s  $ {\bf s}_i$ ,  de te rmining  $\chi_ 0(T)$ ,  but as  well the  dynamica lquan t i tie s, as e.g.  the dyn amical sp i n str u ct ure f act or $S( {\ bfq}, \ omega) $  no t dis cussed  h ere [@ prelo vs ek18], b ) chirality pseudospindegree s ${\ bf\tau}_i$whi c h d o not con trib ute to $\c hi_ 0(T )$, b ute nterthee nt rop y  $s
_2=0.1, 0.15$_where EM_confirms $R_0 \ll 1$._Results within_EM_for KL,_as_shown in Fig. \[figsl5\]b,_are even better_demonstration for vanishing $R_0$._Here, for $J_2=0$_EM_yields quite similar $R(T)$, decreasing and tending towards $R_0 \sim 0$. On the other_hand,_the effect_of_finite_$J_2 >0$ is well visible_and leads towards magnetic LRO_with $R_0_\to \infty$ for $J_2 =0.4$.

![ $R(T)$, evaluated within_EM_for: a) TL_with $J_2=0,0.1,0.15$, and b) KL for $J_2 = 0,_0.2, 0.4$.[]{data-label="figsl5"}](figsl5n.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}

Conclusions
===========

The main message (apparently not_stressed in previous_published_studies_of the SL models)_of presented results for the thermodynamic_quantities: the entropy $s(T)$, susceptibility $\chi_0(T)$,_and in particular the Wilson ratio $R(T)$,_behave similarity in the extended $J_1$-$J_2$_Heisenberg model on TL and_KL in_their presumed SL regimes. Moreover,_results on both_lattices follow_quite analogous development_by varying the nnn exchange $J_2_>0$, whereby the_effect is evidently opposite between TL_and_KL, regarding the_magnetic_LRO_and SL_phases [@kolley15].

While above_similarities_can be_extracted_already from full-model results obtained via_FTLM_[@schnack18; @prelovsek18], the introduction of reduced effective_model appears crucial for_the_understanding and useful analytical_insight. Apart from offering some_numerical advantages of reduced Hilbert space_of basis_states, essential_for ED methods, EM clearly puts into display two (separate) degrees_of freedom: a) the effective spin_$s=1/2$ degrees ${\bf s}_i$,_determining $\chi_0(T)$,_but_as well the_dynamical_quantities, as_e.g. the dynamical spin structure factor $S({\bf_q}, \omega)$_not discussed here [@prelovsek18], b) chirality_pseudospin degrees ${\bf \tau}_i$_which_do not contribute to $\chi_0(T)$, but_enter the entropy $s