Existence of collective effects in magnetic coupling in ionic solids is studied by mapping spin eigenstates of the Heisenberg and exact nonrelativistic Hamiltonians on cluster models representing KNiF 3 , K 2 NiF 4 , NiO, and La 2 CuO 4 . Ab initio techniques are used to estimate the Heisenberg constant J. For clusters with two magnetic centers, the values obtained are about the same for models having more magnetic centers. The absence of collective effects in J strongly suggests that magnetic interactions in this kind of ionic solids are genuinely local and entangle only the two magnetic centers involved. ͓S0163-1829͑97͒04634-1͔The proper and accurate description of magnetic interactions in systems with localized magnetic moments, i.e., ionic solids, is of importance not only from the point of view of basic knowledge but also to understand the electronic structure and magnetic behavior of superconductor parent compounds. 1 The experimental and theoretical study of the magnetic coupling in ionic solids is often based on the use of the Heisenberg Hamiltonian which may be written aswhere the ͗i, j͘ symbol means that the summation is restricted to nearest-neighbor i and j magnetic centers with total spin moment S. The question addressed in this work concerns whether J contains two-body interactions only or if it is better regarded as an effective two-body parameter containing collective effects from the whole solid. We must point out that existence of collective effects in J is claimed mainly from intuition and has not been theoretically or experimentally proven. Because ionic solids are extended systems, it is customary to investigate their electronic structure by using a solid-state approach, usually exploiting translational symmetry. Notice, that this approach cannot provide an answer to the above question because there is no way to separate the collective effects from the two-body interactions. From a purely ab initio, or first-principles, point of view of the theory of the electronic structure, these solid-state approaches are often based on modifications 2-6 of the local-density approach ͑LDA͒. Without these modifications the LDA fails to describe the antiferromagnetic order of many compounds such as NiO or La 2 CuO 4 . 7 More recently, the periodic HartreeFock, in its unrestricted or spin-polarized version, has been applied to a variety of antiferromagnetic systems with, on first sight, a rather good agreement with experiment. 8,9 An alternative approach, different albeit complimentary, is one based on the use of cluster models. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] By construction, the cluster model permits one to investigate the importance of the collective effects. From a technical point of view, the main difference between periodic and local approaches lies in the way to estimate the instantaneous electron-electron interactions. Hence, while the former are constrained to the use of more or less approximate correlation ͑or exchangecorrelation͒ functionals, the latter permits the use of more accurate comput...