Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Anomalous temperature-dependent magnetization in the nearly collinear antiferromagnet Y$_2$Co$_3$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Neutron diffraction shows Y$_2$Co$_3$'s order is nearly collinear A-type antiferromagnetism, not the canted structure bulk magnetization suggested.

desk verdict Neutron diffraction convincingly corrects the earlier noncollinear model of Y2Co3, but the thermal-contraction explanation for the magnetization anomaly leans on interpolated lattice data. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15706 v1 pith:WQN3HS3O submitted 2025-01-26 cond-mat.str-el

Yunshu Shi , Huibo Cao , Hung-Cheng Wu , Li Yin , Neil Harrison , David S. Parker , Tushar Bhowmick , Tessa McNamee
show 12 more authors
Fatemeh Safari Sergey L. Budko James C. Fettinger Susan M. Kauzlarich Peter Klavins Dmitry Popov Ravhi Kumar Russell J. Hemley Shanti Deemyad Taku J. Sato Paul. C. Canfield Valentin Taufour
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords Y2Co3antiferromagnetismkagomelatticemagneticstructureneutrondiffractionitinerantmagnetismexchangeinteractionsthermalcontraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Using single-crystal neutron diffraction, the paper establishes that the antiferromagnet Y$_2$Co$_3$ does not have the noncollinear spin arrangement inferred from bulk magnetization data. Instead, the Co moments lie almost entirely along the $b$ axis, forming an A-type structure: ferromagnetic within each distorted kagome plane and antiferromagnetic between planes; the two Co sites carry moments of [0, -0.68(3), 0] and [0, 1.25(4), 0.07(1)] $\mu_B$. The apparent canting signature in magnetization is traced to a large temperature dependence of the interplane antiferromagnetic exchange: thermal contraction along $b$ strengthens the exchange by roughly 40% between $T_N$ and 2 K, which lowers the perpendicular susceptibility by about 30% and mimics noncollinear behavior. The paper also explains the near absence of pressure dependence of $T_N$ as a compensation between intraplane ferromagnetic and interplane antiferromagnetic exchange under compression.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a two-sublattice molecular field model combined with the measured spin-flop transition. The interplane antiferromagnetic coupling $\lambda_d$ and intraplane ferromagnetic coupling $\lambda_s$ are extracted from $T_N = (C/2)(\lambda_s - \lambda_d)$ and the Curie-Weiss temperature $\theta_P = (C/2)(\lambda_s + \lambda_d)$, and the perpendicular susceptibility is $\chi_\perp = 2M^2/(2|\lambda_d|M^2 + K) \approx 1/|\lambda_d|$, so a drop in $\chi_\perp$ directly reports an increase in $|\lambda_d|$. The size of the effect is quantified through the Gruneisen parameter $\Gamma_i = -d\ln|J|/d\ln a_i$ for the $b$ axis, giving $\Gamma_b \approx 66$. Neutron structure factors, refined in the magnetic space group PAccn, provide the spin arrangement and the ordered-moment temperature dependence; the spin-flop field $B_{SF}(T) = \sqrt{K(T)(2|\lambda_d|M^2-K(T))}/M$ is used to pin down the low-temperature exchange and anisotropy. Heat capacity and Hall data supply the evidence for the itinerant antiferromagnetic contribution that the paper invokes for the residual parallel susceptibility.

What would settle it

Measure the b-axis lattice parameter directly across 5-300 K by high-resolution neutron or x-ray diffraction. If the true $b(T)$ does not show the steep drop below $T_N$ assumed by the interpolation, then the inferred Gruneisen parameter $\Gamma_b \approx 66$ and the claimed 40% exchange enhancement lose their quantitative support. A companion test: apply uniaxial stress along $b$ and check whether $T_N$ increases and $\chi_\perp$ drops at the rate implied by $\Gamma_b$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the magnetic ground state of Y$_2$Co$_3$ is an almost collinear A-type antiferromagnet with magnetic space group PAccn (the symmetry label for the ordered spin arrangement), contrary to the earlier interpretation of bulk magnetization as evidence of a strongly canted, noncollinear structure. Refinement of neutron structure factors places the ordered moments at the two Co sites at [0, -0.68(3), 0] and [0, 1.25(4), 0.07(1)] $\mu_B$, with the 0.07(1) $\mu_B$ $c$-axis component on the 4b site too small to explain the magnetization anomaly. The paper attributes that anomaly to exchange enhancement: from the spin-flop field and molecular field theory, the interplane antiferromagnetic exchange parameter $C\lambda_d$ grows from about $-192$ K near $T_N$ to about $-303$ K at 2 K, while the $b$-axis thermal contraction produces a Gruneisen parameter $\Gamma_b \approx 66$, far larger than in comparable Co fluorides. The remaining nonzero easy-axis susceptibility is assigned to itinerant antiferromagnetic fluctuations, supported by the small magnetic entropy and the Hall coefficient sign change near $T_N$. First-principles calculations reproduce the collinear ground state, the moment magnitudes, and the $b$-axis easy axis.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the b-axis lattice parameter contracts strongly below the ordering temperature as assumed; in fact it was not measured over most of the range, but was interpolated from two points at 90 K and 290 K together with the measured a-axis expansion, and the claimed 40% enhancement of the interplane exchange depends on that interpolation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The prior noncollinear interpretation of Y$_2$Co$_3$ is replaced by a nearly collinear A-type structure; any subsequent model of this compound should start from ferromagnetic kagome planes antiferromagnetically stacked along $b$.
  • Thermal contraction along the $b$ axis is claimed to raise the interplane antiferromagnetic exchange by roughly 40% between $T_N$ and 2 K, producing about a 30% drop in perpendicular susceptibility that mimics canting.
  • The near-zero pressure dependence of $T_N$ is explained by cancellation: compression weakens the intraplane ferromagnetic exchange and strengthens the interplane antiferromagnetic exchange at comparable rates.
  • The same lattice-contraction mechanism is suggested to contribute to the falling perpendicular susceptibility seen in other collinear Co-based antiferromagnets such as KCoF$_3$, K$_2$CoF$_4$, and Co$_2$Mo$_3$O$_8$.
  • Residual magnetization along the easy axis is attributed to itinerant antiferromagnetic fluctuations rather than to a static canting moment, with support from heat capacity and Hall measurements.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: if the Gruneisen parameter for interplane exchange is genuinely near $\Gamma_b \approx 66$, uniaxial stress along $b$ should raise $T_N$ substantially even though hydrostatic pressure leaves $T_N$ nearly unchanged; this is a direct, testable prediction.
  • Beyond the paper: the proposed distinction between noncollinear-looking susceptibility and a genuinely collinear structure may apply to other itinerant antiferromagnets with strong magnetoelastic coupling, so re-examining compounds whose bulk data suggested canting could reveal similar collinear ground states.
  • Beyond the paper: a first-principles calculation of $J_b$ as a function of $b$-axis strain would check whether the claimed 40% exchange enhancement follows from the observed lattice contraction in the density functional theory framework; the present density functional discussion does not compute this strain derivative.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a single-crystal neutron diffraction determination of the magnetic structure of the distorted kagome antiferromagnet Y2Co3. The authors find an almost collinear A-type antiferromagnetic structure (magnetic space group PAccn) with ferromagnetic order within the ac planes and antiferromagnetic coupling along b, with moments of [0, -0.68(3), 0] μB on the Co(8e) site and [0, 1.25(4), 0.07(1)] μB on the Co(4b) site. This structure contradicts an earlier interpretation of bulk magnetization data that suggested a strong noncollinear canting. The paper attributes the anomalous temperature dependence of the magnetic susceptibility to a large temperature dependence of the interplane antiferromagnetic exchange, proposed to be driven by thermal contraction along b, and supports this with molecular-field estimates, high-field spin-flop data, high-pressure lattice measurements, transport and specific-heat data, and spin-polarized DFT calculations. The authors also argue that the near-zero pressure dependence of TN results from compensating pressure dependences of the ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic exchange interactions.

Significance. If the structural result stands, it is an important correction to the previously proposed noncollinear magnetic ground state of Y2Co3 and provides a clear example of a nearly collinear A-type antiferromagnet in a kagome-related lattice. The neutron diffraction work is direct and is supported by a dedicated (100) scan that isolates the small c-axis component, by magnetic symmetry analysis, and by consistency between the refined ordered moment and its temperature dependence. The paper also contains valuable high-field magnetization, high-pressure structural, transport, and specific-heat data that constrain the itinerant character of the magnetism. The main weakness is that the quantitative link between the susceptibility anomaly and thermal contraction along b rests on an interpolated b(T) curve rather than direct measurements, which makes the reported Gruneisen parameter and pressure-derivative numbers uncertain. This does not undermine the magnetic structure determination but weakens the paper's central mechanistic claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.C and Fig. 5 caption] The quantitative attribution of the χ⊥ anomaly to b-axis thermal contraction rests on a b(T) curve that was not measured. The Fig. 5 caption states that b was 'deduced through interpolation based on the two data points at 90 K and 290 K and the temperature dependence of a.' Since 90 K is below TN and 290 K is above TN, this interpolation contains no direct information about the slope of b(T) through the magnetic transition; the 'distinct change in slope at the AFM transition' is observed only for a and c. Consequently, Γ_b = d ln χ⊥/d ln b ≈ 66 in Fig. 6 is not an independent measurement, and the subsequent estimates d(Cλd/2)/dp = -23 K/GPa and d(Cλs/2)/dp = -24.65 K/GPa inherit this uncertainty. The authors should either measure b(T) directly (for example, by neutron or x-ray diffraction over the full temperature range) or clearly present the thermal-contraction mechanism as a hypothesis with an error estimate rather than as a quantitative result.
  2. [Abstract/Introduction vs Section III.C and Appendix D] The introduction states that lattice contraction 'may increase the AFM exchange interaction by up to 40%, consequently decreasing the perpendicular magnetic susceptibility by 30%.' However, the directly inferred change in Cλd from -192 K near TN to about -303 K at 2 K (Appendix D) is a factor of 1.58, i.e., a 58% increase. If the 40% figure is instead derived from Γ_b and Δb/b, it inherits the interpolation uncertainty described above. The relationship between these two estimates should be clarified, because the claimed 30% drop in χ⊥ follows from the ratio |λd(2K)|/|λd(TN)| ≈ 1.58 only if the simplified expression χ⊥ = 1/|λd| is used across the whole temperature range.
  3. [Appendix D and Eq. (14)] The estimate Cλd ≈ -303 K at 2 K is obtained from the spin-flop field using M_sat(T=0) = 1 μB (S=1/2) in the simulation. The refined ordered moments are 0.68(3) μB and 1.25(4) μB on the two Co sites, so the assumed uniform 1 μB is an average but not derived from the refined structure. Since B_SF depends on M through B_SF = sqrt(K(2|λd|M^2 - K))/M, the extracted λd is sensitive to this choice. The authors should justify this value or show that the extracted Cλd and hence the exchange-enhancement factor are robust to using the refined site-resolved moments.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III.B heading] The heading 'Temperature-dependent bulk mnagnetization' contains a typo: 'mnagnetization' should be 'magnetization.'
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] In the caption, 'reflecti on' should be 'reflection' and 'configuration' could be formatted cleanly; also, the sentence 'It is worth noting that magnetic moment along the b axis does not contribute to any magnetic reflection at 100 reflection' is missing an article and reads awkwardly.
  3. [Section III.A, paragraph after Fig. 1] The text reports m4b = (0, 1.25(4), 0.03(8)) μB from the refinement and then gives 0.07(1) μB from the dedicated (100) scan. The abstract and conclusion cite only the latter value; the paper should state explicitly which value is used for the final magnetic structure and why, to avoid apparent inconsistency.
  4. [Section III.C, Table I] In Table I, the Y2Co3 row lists dTN/dp and then the derived quantities d(Cλs/2)/dp and d(Cλd/2)/dp in the same columns as dTC/dp for the ferromagnetic compounds. The column headers should be adapted so that it is clear that the third column for Y2Co3 is dTN/dp, not dTC/dp.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the neutron-determined magnetic structure is independent of the magnetization anomaly it reinterprets, and the exchange constants are taken from independent measurements; the thermal-contraction argument is weakened by an interpolated b(T) curve but is not circular.

full rationale

The central structural conclusion — A-type AFM with moments essentially along b and a small c-axis canting — rests on new single-crystal neutron diffraction and magnetic symmetry analysis, not on the prior magnetization model. The exchange constants used in the molecular-field explanation are not fitted to the susceptibility being explained: Cλd ≈ −192 K follows from the independently reported TN and θP via Eqs. (3a,b), and Cλd(2 K) ≈ −303 K follows from the previously reported spin-flop field and anisotropy energy via Eq. (14). The comparison with χ⊥ = 1/|λd| (Eq. 5) is a consistency check, not a fit of λd to χ⊥. The Gruneisen parameter Γ_b ≈ 66 is derived from measured χ⊥(T) and the b(T) curve, but the paper explicitly states that b(T) was not measured over the range: 'the behavior of b deduced through interpolation based on the two data points at 90 K and 290 K and the temperature dependence of a' (Fig. 5 caption). This is a quantitative limitation on the thermal-contraction explanation, not a circular reduction. The pressure-compensation statement also uses the known dTN/dp from Ref. [8] together with an independently estimated d(Cλd/2)/dp from κ_b and Γ_b; the near-cancellation is not forced by definition because the AFM pressure derivative is obtained separately from the measured dTN/dp. Self-citations to Ref. [8] supply prior experimental inputs (TN, θP, spin-flop field, anisotropy) that are external measurements, not the target result, and the magnetic structure itself is not derived from those inputs. No derivation step reduces by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's quantitative explanation relies on a molecular-field treatment of an itinerant magnet, on a temperature-dependent anisotropy model with fitted parameters, and on an interpolated b-axis lattice parameter. No new physical entities are postulated. The main structural conclusion from neutron diffraction is less assumption-dependent than the secondary magnetization interpretation.

free parameters (3)
  • Kuz'min shape parameters s and p = s=0.63, p=5.4
    Fitted to the normalized ordered moment curve from neutron Bragg intensity and used to model K(T) and the spin-flop phase boundary in Appendix D.
  • Callen-Callen exponent xi = 0.75
    Chosen to make the calculated spin-flop phase boundary agree with experiment below 200 K in Appendix D; xi=1 fits less well.
  • Debye and Einstein temperatures = T_Theta=91 K, T_E=225 K
    Fitted to heat capacity to construct the lattice background and estimate magnetic entropy in Section III.D, supporting the itinerant interpretation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Molecular field theory with identical spins applies to the two inequivalent Co sublattices.
    Used in Section III.C to convert TN=252 K and theta_p=59.5 K into intraplane (C_lambda_s=312 K) and interplane (C_lambda_d=-192 K) exchange fields despite the itinerant character of the compound.
  • domain assumption The temperature dependence of anisotropy follows a modified Callen-Callen power law K(T) proportional to [M(T)/M(0)]^(3xi).
    Appendix D; acknowledged by the authors as a rough approximation for a complex itinerant magnet.
  • ad hoc to paper The temperature dependence of b(T) is adequately captured by interpolation between 90 K and 290 K together with a(T).
    Figure 5 caption; the Gruneisen parameter Gamma_b and the proposed enhancement of Jb rely on this unmeasured curve.
  • domain assumption The finite parallel susceptibility can be explained by itinerant antiferromagnetic fluctuations.
    Section III.D; this is presented as a hypothesis, not a derived result, and is supported only indirectly by resistivity, Hall, and heat-capacity data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anomalous temperature-dependent magnetization in the nearly collinear antiferromagnet Y$_2$Co$_3$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WQN3HS3O

@misc{pith2026250115706,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anomalous temperature-dependent magnetization in the nearly collinear antiferromagnet Y$_2$Co$_3$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WQN3HS3O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15706}
}
abstract

Y$_2$Co$_3$ is a newly discovered antiferromagnetic (AFM) compound with distorted kagome layers. Previous investigations via bulk magnetization measurements suggested a complex noncollinear magnetic behavior, with magnetic moments primarily anti-aligned along the $b$ axis and some canting towards the $ac$ plane. In this study, we report the magnetic structure of Y$_2$Co$_3$ to be an A-type AFM structure with ferromagnetic (FM) interactions within the distorted kagome plane and an interplane antiferromagnetic interaction, as determined by single-crystal neutron diffraction. The magnetic moments align along the $b$ axis, with minimal canting towards the $c$ axis, at odds with the previous interpretation of bulk magnetization measurements. The magnetic moments on the two distinct Co sites are [0, -0.68(3), 0] $\mu_B$ and [0, 1.25(4), 0.07(1)] $\mu_B$. We attribute the previously reported "noncollinear" behavior to the considerable temperature dependence of itinerant AFM exchange interactions, induced by thermal contraction along the $b$ axis. Additionally, our examination of lattice constants through pressure studies reveals compensating effects on FM and AFM interactions, resulting in negligible pressure dependence of $T_\textrm{N}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15706 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Illustration of the magnetic Structure of Y [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) Susceptibility as a function of temperature of si [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The lattice parameter as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: displays the transport properties of Y2Co3. The comparatively low resistivity signifies good metallic behav￾ior. The derivative (black curve) exhibits a sudden jump at TN, corresponding to the reduction of scattering from the dis￾ordered state to the ordered state. Not…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The Hall resistivity as a function of applied magneti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (a) Specific heat of Y [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Percentage change in lattice constants and unit-ce [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (a) The lattice parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. An illustration of a simple canting model. The spins [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The normalized ordered moment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. (a) Magnetization as a function of applied magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    \ Han , author J

    author author T.-H. \ Han , author J. S. \ Helton , author S. Chu , author D. G. \ Nocera , author J. A. \ Rodriguez-Rivera , author C. Broholm , \ and\ author Y. S. \ Lee ,\ 10.1038/nature11659 journal journal Nature \ volume 492 ,\ pages 406 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1038/nature11659

  2. [2]

    author author B. C. \ Sales , author W. R. \ Meier , author A. F. \ May , author J. Xing , author J.-Q. \ Yan , author S. Gao , author Y. H. \ Liu , author M. B. \ Stone , author A. D. \ Christianson , author Q. Zhang , \ and\ author M. A. \ McGuire ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.5.044202 journal journal Phys. Rev. Mater. \ volume 5 ,\ pages 044202 ( year 20...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevmaterials.5.044202

  3. [3]

    Nakatsuji , author N

    author author S. Nakatsuji , author N. Kiyohara , \ and\ author T. Higo ,\ 10.1038/nature15723 journal journal Nature \ volume 527 ,\ pages 212 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1038/nature15723 2015

  4. [4]

    Ma , author X

    author author W. Ma , author X. Xu , author Z. Wang , author H. Zhou , author M. Marshall , author Z. Qu , author W. Xie , \ and\ author S. Jia ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.103.235109 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 103 ,\ pages 1 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.103.235109

  5. [5]

    Mahon , author E

    author author T. Mahon , author E. Gaudin , author B. Vignolle , author G. Ballon , author B. Chevalier , \ and\ author S. Tenc \' e ,\ 10.1016/j.jallcom.2017.12.013 journal journal Journal of Alloys and Compounds \ volume 737 ,\ pages 377 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2017.12.013 2017

  6. [6]

    Tenc \' e , author R

    author author S. Tenc \' e , author R. Caballero Flores , author J. Chable , author S. Gorsse , author B. Chevalier , \ and\ author E. Gaudin ,\ 10.1021/ic500529b journal journal Inorganic Chemistry \ volume 53 ,\ pages 6728 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1021/ic500529b

  7. [7]

    author author J. K. \ Byland , author Y. Shi , author D. S. \ Parker , author J. Zhao , author S. Ding , author R. Mata , author H. E. \ Magliari , author A. Palasyuk , author S. L. \ Bud'ko , author P. C. \ Canfield , author P. Klavins , \ and\ author V. Taufour ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.6.063803 journal journal Phys. Rev. Materials \ volume 6 ,\ pages...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevmaterials.6.063803

  8. [8]

    Shi , author D

    author author Y. Shi , author D. S. \ Parker , author E. S. \ Choi , author K. P. \ Devlin , author L. Yin , author J. Zhao , author P. Klavins , author S. M. \ Kauzlarich , \ and\ author V. Taufour ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.104.184407 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 104 ,\ pages 184407 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.104.184407

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Gignoux , author R

    author author D. Gignoux , author R. Lemaire , author R. Mendia-Monterroso , author J. Moreau , \ and\ author J. Schweizer ,\ @noop journal journal Physica B+ C \ volume 130 ,\ pages 376 ( year 1985 ) NoStop

    1985

  2. [10]

    Brouha \ and\ author K

    author author M. Brouha \ and\ author K. H. J. \ Buschow ,\ 10.1088/0305-4608/3/12/021 journal journal Journal of Physics F: Metal Physics \ volume 3 ,\ pages 2218 ( year 1973 ) NoStop

    1973 doi

  3. [11]

    Jesche \ and\ author P

    author author A. Jesche \ and\ author P. C. \ Canfield ,\ @noop journal journal Philosophical Magazine \ volume 94 ,\ pages 2372 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014

  4. [12]

    Cao , author B

    author author H. Cao , author B. C. \ Chakoumakos , author K. M. \ Andrews , author Y. Wu , author R. A. \ Riedel , author J. Hodges , author W. Zhou , author R. Gregory , author B. Haberl , author J. Molaison , \ and\ author G. W. \ Lynn ,\ 10.3390/cryst9010005 journal journa...

    doi

  5. [13]

    author author B. C. \ Chakoumakos , author H. Cao , author F. Ye , author A. D. \ Stoica , author M. Popovici , author M. Sundaram , author W. Zhou , author J. S. \ Hicks , author G. W. \ Lynn , \ and\ author R. A. \ Riedel ,\ 10.1107/S0021889811012301 journal journal Journal ...

    doi

  6. [14]

    Perez-Mato , author S

    author author J. Perez-Mato , author S. Gallego , author E. Tasci , author L. Elcoro , author G. de la Flor , \ and\ author M. Aroyo ,\ https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-matsci-070214-021008 journal journal Annual Review of Materials Research \ volume 45 ,\ pages 217 ( year 2015...

    doi

  7. [15]

    Rodr \' i guez-Carvajal ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-4526(93)90108-I journal journal Physica B: Condensed Matter \ volume 192 ,\ pages 55 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

    author author J. Rodr \' i guez-Carvajal ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-4526(93)90108-I journal journal Physica B: Condensed Matter \ volume 192 ,\ pages 55 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

    1993 doi

  8. [16]

    Nawa , author D

    author author K. Nawa , author D. Okuyama , author H.-C. \ Wu , author R. Murasaki , author S. Matsuzaka , author K. Kinjo , \ and\ author T. J. \ Sato ,\ 10.7566/JPSJ.93.091001 journal journal Journal of the Physical Society of Japan \ volume 93 ,\ pages 091001 ( year 2024 ) ...

    doi

  9. [17]

    author author D. C. \ Johnston ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.077201 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 109 ,\ pages 077201 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    Z ivkovi \' c , author K

    author author I. Z ivkovi \' c , author K. Pr s a , author O. Zaharko , \ and\ author H. Berger ,\ 10.1088/0953-8984/22/5/056002 journal journal Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter \ volume 22 ,\ pages 56002 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    author author E. D. \ Mun , author S. L. \ Bud'ko , author H. Ko , author G. J. \ Miller , \ and\ author P. C. \ Canfield ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2010.06.057 journal journal Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials \ volume 322 ,\ pages 3527 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    author author D. C. \ Johnston , author R. J. \ McQueeney , author B. Lake , author A. Honecker , author M. E. \ Zhitomirsky , author R. Nath , author Y. Furukawa , author V. P. \ Antropov , \ and\ author Y. Singh ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.094445 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ vo...

    doi

  13. [21]

    author author S. J. \ Blundell ,\ @noop title Magnetism in Condensed-Matter \ ( publisher Oxford University Press. Oxford ,\ year 2001 ) NoStop

    2001

  14. [22]

    author author C. Kittel ,\ http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Solid-Physics-Charles-Kittel/dp/047141526X/ref=dp_ob_title_bk title Introduction to Solid State Physics ,\ edition 8th \ ed.\ ( publisher Wiley, Hoboken, NJ ,\ year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004

  15. [23]

    Tsuda , author H

    author author T. Tsuda , author H. Yasuoka , \ and\ author T. Miyauchi ,\ 10.1143/JPSJ.45.1551 journal journal Journal of the Physical Society of Japan \ volume 45 ,\ pages 1551 ( year 1978 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.45.1551 https://doi.org/10.1143/...

    1978 doi

  16. [24]

    Breed , author K

    author author D. Breed , author K. Gilijamse , \ and\ author A. Miedema ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-8914(69)90073-1 journal journal Physica \ volume 45 ,\ pages 205 ( year 1969 ) NoStop

    1969 doi

  17. [25]

    author author Y. S. \ Tang , author S. M. \ Wang , author L. Lin , author C. Li , author S. H. \ Zheng , author C. F. \ Li , author J. H. \ Zhang , author Z. B. \ Yan , author X. P. \ Jiang , \ and\ author J.-M. \ Liu ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.100.134112 journal journal Phys. Rev. B...

    doi

  18. [26]

    McAlister \ and\ author P

    author author S. McAlister \ and\ author P. Strobel ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-8853(83)90073-2 journal journal Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials \ volume 30 ,\ pages 340 ( year 1983 ) NoStop

    1983 doi

  19. [27]

    Hardy , author C

    author author F. Hardy , author C. Meingast , author V. Taufour , author J. Flouquet , author H. v. Loehneysen , author R. A. \ Fisher , author N. E. \ Phillips , author A. D. \ Huxley , \ and\ author J. C. \ Lashley ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.80.174521 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \...

    doi

  20. [28]

    author author K. N. \ Shrivastava ,\ https://doi.org/10.1002/pssb.2220780236 journal journal phys. stat. sol. (b) \ volume 78 ,\ pages 749 ( year 1976 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/pssb.2220780236 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...

    1976 doi

  21. [29]

    author author M. E. \ Fisher ,\ 10.1063/1.1703878 journal journal Journal of Mathematical Physics \ volume 4 ,\ pages 124 ( year 1963 ) NoStop

    1963 doi

  22. [30]

    Svanidze , author J

    author author E. Svanidze , author J. K. \ Wang , author T. Besara , author L. Liu , author Q. Huang , author T. Siegrist , author B. Frandsen , author J. W. \ Lynn , author A. H. \ Nevidomskyy , author M. B. \ Gamza , author M. C. \ Aronson , author Y. J. \ Uemura , \ and\ au...

    doi

  23. [31]

    author author R. E. \ Baumbach , author V. A. \ Sidorov , author X. Lu , author N. J. \ Ghimire , author F. Ronning , author B. L. \ Scott , author D. J. \ Williams , author E. D. \ Bauer , \ and\ author J. D. \ Thompson ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.89.094408 journal journal Phys. Rev....

    doi

  24. [32]

    Rotter , author M

    author author M. Rotter , author M. Tegel , author D. Johrendt , author I. Schellenberg , author W. Hermes , \ and\ author R. P\"ottgen ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.020503 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 78 ,\ pages 020503(R) ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    doi

  25. [33]

    Paige , author B

    author author D. Paige , author B. Szpunar , \ and\ author B. Tanner ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of magnetism and magnetic materials \ volume 44 ,\ pages 239 ( year 1984 ) NoStop

    1984

  26. [34]

    author author O. L. \ Anderson , author D. G. \ Isaak , \ and\ author S. Yamamoto ,\ 10.1063/1.342969 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 65 ,\ pages 1534 ( year 1989 ) NoStop

    1989 doi

  27. [35]

    Prescher \ and\ author V

    author author C. Prescher \ and\ author V. B. \ Prakapenka ,\ 10.1080/08957959.2015.1059835 journal journal High Pressure Research \ volume 35 ,\ pages 223 ( year 2015 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://doi.org/10.1080/08957959.2015.1059835 https://doi.org/10.1080/08957959.2015...

    2015

  28. [36]

    author author C. H. \ Lake \ and\ author B. H. \ Toby ,\ 10.1154/1.3661125 journal journal Powder Diffraction \ volume 26 ,\ pages S13–S21 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  29. [37]

    Shen , author Y

    author author G. Shen , author Y. Wang , author A. Dewaele , author C. Wu , author D. E. \ Fratanduono , author J. Eggert , author S. Klotz , author K. F. \ Dziubek , author P. Loubeyre , author O. V. \ Fat'yanov , author P. D. \ Asimow , author T. Mashimo , \ and\ author R. M...

  30. [38]

    Pakhira , author F

    author author S. Pakhira , author F. Islam , author E. O'Leary , author M. A. \ Tanatar , author T. Heitmann , author L.-L. \ Wang , author R. Prozorov , author A. Kaminski , author D. Vaknin , \ and\ author D. C. \ Johnston ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.106.024418 journal journal Phys....

    doi

  31. [39]

    author author M. D. \ Kuz'min ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.107204 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 94 ,\ pages 107204 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005 doi

  32. [40]

    author author J. A. \ Detwiler , author G. M. \ Schmiedeshoff , author N. Harrison , author A. H. \ Lacerda , author J. C. \ Cooley , \ and\ author J. L. \ Smith ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.61.402 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 61 ,\ pages 402 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

    doi

  33. [41]

    Callen \ and\ author H

    author author E. Callen \ and\ author H. Callen ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3697(60)90161-X journal journal Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids \ volume 16 ,\ pages 310 ( year 1960 ) NoStop

    1960 doi

  34. [42]

    author author E. R. \ Callen ,\ 10.1063/1.1777176 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 33 ,\ pages 832 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004 doi

  35. [43]

    author author T. N. \ Lamichhane , author O. Palasyuk , author V. P. \ Antropov , author I. A. \ Zhuravlev , author K. D. \ Belashchenko , author I. C. \ Nlebedim , author K. W. \ Dennis , author A. Jesche , author M. J. \ Kramer , author S. L. \ Bud’ko , author R. W. \ McCall...

  36. [44]

    Callen \ and\ author E

    author author H. Callen \ and\ author E. Callen ,\ 10.1016/0022-3697(66)90012-6 journal journal Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids \ volume 27 ,\ pages 1271 ( year 1966 ) NoStop

    1966 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.