Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Competing collinear and non-collinear spin textures imaged by spatially-resolved REXS in Eu(Al0.4Ga0.6)4

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The two magnetic transitions in Eu(Al0.4Ga0.6)4 come from two spatially separate spin textures.

desk verdict Solid spatially-resolved REXS study with a real domain-segregation result, but the inversion-symmetry conclusion is an indirect inference that needs a direct structural probe before it carries the weight the paper puts on it. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11070 v1 pith:4JGEILC3 submitted 2026-08-11 cond-mat.str-el

Fellipe B. Carneiro , Zéetény Bacsó , Kevin Allen , Aly H. Abdeldaim , Rebecca Scatena , Jaime M. Moya , Roger D. Johnson , Emilia Morosan
show 1 more author
Alessandro Bombardi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords resonantelasticx-rayscatteringspatiallyresolvedREXSspin-densitywavehelicalmagneticordersingle-qmulti-domaindomainsinversionsymmetryEu(Al0.4Ga0.6)4
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 spatially resolved resonant elastic x-ray scattering, this paper maps the magnetic order of Eu(Al$_{0.4}$Ga$_{0.6}$)$_4$ across a roughly one-millimetre sample area. It finds that the two magnetic transitions at $T_{N1}=17$ K and $T_{N2}=14$ K are not successive changes of a single texture but the onsets of two nearly degenerate, orthogonal pairs of wavevectors that occupy different regions of the crystal. One region is dominated by collinear spin-density-wave domains, the other by helical domains, and the helical state appears in both handednesses, which the authors read as evidence that inversion symmetry survives until the magnetic ordering. The conclusion is a single-$q$, multi-domain ground state whose local texture can differ sharply from what a small-spot or spatially averaged probe would report.

What carries the argument

The central tool is spatially resolved resonant elastic x-ray scattering (REXS) with circular polarization analysis. A focused beam (about $100 \times 20$ $\mu$m) is rastered over a $1 \times 0.8$ mm area while the integrated intensity of each magnetic satellite is recorded; comparing the intensities measured with opposite circular polarizations (C1 and C2) distinguishes collinear textures (no contrast) from non-collinear ones (contrast), and the sign of that contrast maps handedness. Azimuthal scans—rotating the sample about the scattering vector—provide the angular fingerprint that fixes the moment orientation, here giving moments transverse to the propagation direction for the SDW states. The single-$q$ versus double-$q$ decision rests on the absence of sum-wavevector satellites and on the spatial variation of satellite intensity ratios, which would be locked for a multi-$q$ phase.

What would settle it

Detecting a magnetic satellite at the sum wavevector $q^{\mathrm{SDW}}_h + q^{\mathrm{Helix}}_k$ (or any $q_1+q_2$) with intensity above the noise floor would show a double-$q$ texture and falsify the single-$q$ conclusion; separately, a direct structural probe—high-resolution diffraction or second-harmonic generation—that observes inversion-symmetry loss above 14 K would falsify the paper's symmetry inference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the magnetic state of Eu(Al$_{0.4}$Ga$_{0.6}$)$_4$ is intrinsically inhomogeneous. Four magnetic satellites appear around the $(0,0,6)$ Bragg peak: $q^{\mathrm{SDW}}_h \approx (0.2320,0,0)$ and $q^{\mathrm{SDW}}_k \approx (0,0.2319,0)$ below $T_{N1}=17$ K, and $q^{\mathrm{Helix}}_h \approx (0.2363,0,0)$ and $q^{\mathrm{Helix}}_k \approx (0,0.2350,0)$ below $T_{N2}=14$ K. Circular-polarization contrast shows the SDW pair is collinear while the helical pair is non-collinear, with opposite handedness in different sample regions. Spatial maps reveal that SDW satellites concentrate in one part of the crystal and helical satellites in another, with no reflections at sum wavevectors and non-constant intensity ratios between regions. The authors therefore conclude the order is single-$q$ with coexisting domains, not double-$q$, and that the coexistence of both helical chiralities indicates inversion symmetry is not broken before the magnetic transition.

Load-bearing premise

The symmetry conclusion rests on interpreting the coexistence of both helical handednesses as proof that inversion symmetry is intact down to the magnetic transition, together with the absence of any detected structural distortion; if opposite chiral domains could form in a lattice that already broke inversion, or if a subtle distortion escaped detection, that argument collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper's picture is right, bulk magnetometry and neutron diffraction, which average over many domains, can report a magnetic texture for Eu(Al$_{0.4}$Ga$_{0.6}$)$_4$ that does not exist in any single region of the crystal.
  • The two transition temperatures correspond to two separate order parameters, so studies that treat the 17 K and 14 K transitions as successive reorderings of one magnetic state would misassign their meaning.
  • Because both helical chiralities are present, any topological Hall effect in this composition must be explained by a mechanism that does not require a pre-existing polar or chiral lattice, such as frustrated RKKY interactions.
  • Spatially resolved scattering becomes a necessary check for the Eu(Al$_{1-x}$Ga$_x$)$_4$ family, since the apparent ground state depends on the probed volume.
  • The absence of a charge-density-wave transition in this composition leaves fourfold symmetry intact down to the magnetic order, making the Ga-rich side a testing ground for centrosymmetric skyrmion mechanisms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the paper leaves implicit is that the two helical chiralities should appear with roughly equal total populations in zero field; an applied electric field or uniaxial strain that breaks inversion would be predicted to bias one handedness, which could be tested with the same contrast maps.
  • The segregation of SDW and helical regions points to local Al/Ga composition or defect fluctuations controlling which near-degenerate state nucleates; correlating micro-EXAFS or nano-diffraction maps with the REXS domain images would test that directly.
  • If the single-$q$ picture is right, field-dependent spatially resolved REXS should show domain-wall motion or conversion between SDW and helical regions rather than a uniform rotation of the whole texture, a measurement the paper does not report.
  • The contrast between this two-chirality state and the single-chirality state reported for EuAl$_4$ suggests a composition-driven crossover in the series; a systematic $x$-dependent spatial study would locate where chiral selection sets in.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports spatially-resolved resonant elastic X-ray scattering (REXS) measurements on Eu(Al0.4Ga0.6)4, a centrosymmetric-tetragonal candidate for skyrmion physics. The authors identify two magnetic transitions at TN1 = 17 K and TN2 = 14 K, associated with two nearly degenerate orthogonal pairs of q-vectors. Using a focused beam and raster scanning over a 0.8 x 1 mm area, they observe spatial segregation of phases: one sample region hosts orthogonal spin-density-wave (SDW) domains, while another hosts orthogonal helical domains. The paper further claims that the helical state forms inversion domains of opposite handedness, which is interpreted as evidence that inversion symmetry is not broken before the magnetic transition. The authors conclude that the magnetic state is single-q and multi-domain, and they emphasize that local versus global probes can yield different magnetic textures in this material class.

Significance. The work is valuable as a demonstration of spatially-resolved REXS for visualizing mesoscale magnetic phase segregation in a candidate centrosymmetric skyrmion host. The temperature-dependent intensity maps and the identification of competing SDW and helical domains with distinct spatial distributions are well grounded in the data and provide a clear advance over conventional aperture-averaged measurements. The paper also carefully acknowledges limitations, such as the non-definitive nature of absent combination reflections for the single-q conclusion. However, the broader significance, namely the claim that Eu(Al0.4Ga0.6)4 preserves inversion symmetry down to the magnetic transition and thus avoids DM-type interactions, rests on an indirect inference from opposite helical domains. If that inference is correct, the paper provides important evidence for centrosymmetric skyrmion mechanisms; if not, the central narrative is substantially weakened. The experimental methodology and the spatial maps themselves are strong assets, and the final message about the importance of spatially-resolved probes is well supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV and Fig. 4] The description of which helical satellite exhibits inversion domains is internally inconsistent. In the text near Fig. 4, q_Helix^k is said to show null or negligible contrast and then, in the same paragraph, to show a large variation of C1 versus C2 contrast; the figure caption labels panels (f), (g), and (h) all as q_Helix^k. Section IV then attributes the inversion domains to q_Helix^k, whereas the earlier azimuthal analysis (Section III) states that at Psi = -90 degrees the contrast is null for q_Helix^h and maximal for q_Helix^k. As written, the reader cannot determine which q-vector's spatial map provides the evidence for opposite handedness. Because the inversion-domain observation is the sole basis for the claim that inversion symmetry is preserved, this inconsistency must be resolved for the central conclusion to be assessable.
  2. [Section IV] The inference from the coexistence of opposite helical domains to preserved inversion symmetry is not secure. If the lattice had already undergone a structural transition that breaks inversion symmetry, enantiomorphic structural twins would naturally produce regions of opposite local structural chirality; if the magnetic helix handedness is locked to that structural chirality, the same coexistence of left- and right-handed helices would be observed. The paper does not directly measure the structural symmetry of the probed crystal, nor does it rule out structural twins; the cited absence of a CDW is based on bulk measurements of other samples, not on a spatially-resolved structural probe of the same crystal. Since the paper's significance as a centrosymmetric skyrmion candidate depends on this point, the conclusion should be presented as a conjecture, or supported by additional structural data (e.g., REXS structural reflections or diffraction measurements sensitive to monoclinic distortion in the same sample regions).
  3. [Section III] The assignment of the non-collinear phase below TN2 as helical rather than cycloidal relies on a null-contrast argument at Psi approximately -90 degrees that is deferred to the supplemental material. For this argument to be convincing, the main text should state the model-predicted contrast for both helical and cycloidal structures at that azimuth, the measured background intensity, and the statistical significance of the observed zero (or maximal) contrast. As presented, the 'only spin configuration that can yield zero contrast' claim cannot be independently evaluated by the reader, and this is a load-bearing step because the existence of helices with opposite handedness is the basis for the inversion-symmetry discussion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV] There are several typographical errors in the domain-segregation sentence: 'q_SDW^h / q_Helix^k' and 'q_Helix^k / q_Helix^k' should read 'q_SDW^h / q_SDW^k' and 'q_Helix^h / q_Helix^k', respectively.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption labels panels (f), (g), and (h) all as 'q_Helix^k'; these should be the distinct satellites, and the word 'sattelite' is misspelled.
  3. [Section III] The text states that q_Helix^k has null contrast in the maps and then later says q_Helix^k shows large variation; this contradictory wording should be corrected, and the azimuthal angle for the maps should be explicitly stated to match the earlier statement of null (maximal) contrast for q_Helix^h (q_Helix^k).
  4. [Section III] The single-q conclusion could be strengthened by explicitly plotting the ratio of the integrated intensities of the two helical satellites (or of q_Helix^k to q_SDW^h) across the sample, rather than relying on qualitative spatial segregation and the absence of combination reflections, which the authors acknowledge is not definitive.
  5. [Section II] In the methods section, '400µm-tick diamond quarter-wave phase retarder' should be '400µm-thick'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central measurements and model comparisons are self-contained, and the only self-citation supplies methodology rather than the paper's conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are supported by direct REXS measurements: q-vector positions, integrated intensities, temperature dependencies, and C1/C2 circular-polarization contrast maps. These are compared to forward scattering models and irrep decompositions that are standard in the field, and the assignment of SDW versus helical textures follows from the measured azimuthal and polarization dependence, not from any parameter fitted to the conclusion. The single-q multi-domain conclusion uses a ratio criterion from an independent reference [25] together with the observed spatial intensity variation, and the absence of combination reflections is explicitly noted as insufficient on its own. The inversion-symmetry inference is indirect, but it is presented as a physical argument based on opposite helical handedness; it is not obtained by defining the conclusion into the input, by fitting a related quantity, or by citing the authors' own prior work as the source of the claim. The only self-citation, Ref. [13], is used for the domain-mapping methodology and for a comparative statement about EuAl4; it does not carry the paper's main result. A possible concern that structural inversion domains could also explain the opposite helicities is a correctness risk, not a circularity, and does not reduce the derivation to its inputs.

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

No new particles, forces, or fitted ad hoc parameters are introduced; the q-vectors and intensities are measured quantities. The analysis relies on standard magnetic symmetry analysis for the I4/mmm space group and on the assumption that the sample remains centrosymmetric below the magnetic transition, which is inferred rather than directly probed.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The magnetic representation for I4/mmm with q=(delta,0,0) or (0,delta,0) decomposes into three irreps mSM2, mSM3, mSM4, and combinations of these irreps with real/imaginary basis vectors generate collinear and helical states.
    Invoked in Section III to assign magnetic structures from azimuthal scans; taken from prior group-theory analysis [12].
  • domain assumption Eu(Al0.4Ga0.6)4 does not undergo a CDW or structural symmetry reduction before the magnetic transitions, so the four-fold symmetry is intact.
    Used in Discussion to argue that inversion symmetry is preserved; based on previous reports [18,19] and absence of observed structural reflections, not directly measured in this experiment.
  • domain assumption Coexistence of helical domains with opposite handedness implies the crystal retained inversion symmetry through the magnetic transition.
    Central to the claim that inversion symmetry is not broken; assumes a globally broken inversion would select a single chirality. Entered in Discussion.
  • domain assumption RKKY interactions mediate the magnetic order and local disorder modifies their range.
    Used in Discussion to propose microscopic origin of competing textures; background theory, not load-bearing for the experimental claims.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Competing collinear and non-collinear spin textures imaged by spatially-resolved REXS in Eu(Al0.4Ga0.6)4." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4JGEILC3

@misc{pith2026260811070,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Competing collinear and non-collinear spin textures imaged by spatially-resolved REXS in Eu(Al0.4Ga0.6)4},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4JGEILC3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11070}
}
abstract

Here, we use resonant elastic x-ray scattering (REXS) to investigate the inhomogeneity of the zero-field magnetic spin texture of Eu(Al$_{0.4}$Ga$_{0.6}$)$_4$. By using spatially-resolved REXS, we show that the two magnetic transitions at T$_{N1}$ = 17 K and T$_{N2}$ = 14 K originate from two nearly degenerate, yet distinct, orthogonal pairs of q-vectors. The corresponding phases are segregated spatially, such that one fraction of the sample comprises coexisting orthogonal spin-density-wave domains, while another fraction hosts coexisting orthogonal helical domains. Additionally, the helical state forms inversion domains indicating that the inversion symmetry is not broken prior the magnetic transition. Our results suggest that the magnetic state is single-q and revealed a large variation of spin textures across a 0.8 - 1 mm area of the sample surface. These results demonstrate clear differences between the locally and globally probed magnetic textures, typically assumed to be representative of the system as a whole, highlighting the importance of spatially-resolved probes for accurately describing the magnetic behavior of this class of materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11070 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Rocking curves around the satellites with opposite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Temperature dependency of the integrated intensity of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Intensity maps showing the spatial variation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Intensity contrast maps from opposite circular lights C1 and C2 for each sattelite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hayami and Y

    S. Hayami and Y. Motome, Square skyrmion crystal in centrosymmetric itinerant magnets, Phys. Rev. B103, 024439 (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    Takagi, N

    R. Takagi, N. Matsuyama, V. Ukleev, L. Yu, J. S. White, S. Francoual, J. R. L. Mardegan, S. Hayami, H. Saito, K. Kaneko, K. Ohishi, Y. ¯Onuki, T.-h. Arima, Y. Tokura, T. Nakajima, and S. Seki, Square and rhombic lattices of magnetic skyrmions in a centrosymmetric binary com- pound, Nat. Comm.13, 1472 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Hayami, Multiple Skyrmion Crystal Phases by Itiner- ant Frustration in Centrosymmetric Tetragonal Magnets, J

    S. Hayami, Multiple Skyrmion Crystal Phases by Itiner- ant Frustration in Centrosymmetric Tetragonal Magnets, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.91, 023705 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    A. O. Leonov and M. Mostovoy, Multiply periodic states and isolated skyrmions in an anisotropic frustrated mag- net, Nat. Comm.6, 8275 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Z. Wang, Y. Su, S.-Z. Lin, and C. D. Batista, Skyrmion Crystal from RKKY Interaction Mediated by 2D Elec- tron Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 207201 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Kurumaji, T

    T. Kurumaji, T. Nakajima, M. Hirschberger, A. Kikkawa, Y. Yamasaki, H. Sagayama, H. Nakao, Y. Taguchi, T.-h. Arima, and Y. Tokura, Skyrmion Lat- tice with a Giant Topological Hall Effect in a Frustrated Triangular-Lattice Magnet, Science365, 914 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Hirschberger, T

    M. Hirschberger, T. Nakajima, S. Gao, L. Peng, A. Kikkawa, T. Kurumaji, M. Kriener, Y. Yamasaki, H. Sagayama, H. Nakao, K. Ohishi, K. Kakurai, Y. Taguchi, X. Yu, T.-h. Arima, and Y. Tokura, Skyrmion phase and competing magnetic orders on a breathing kagom´ e lattice, Nat. Comm.10, 5831 (2019). 7

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Yasui, C

    Y. Yasui, C. J. Butler, N. D. Khanh, S. Hayami, T. Nomoto, T. Hanaguri, Y. Motome, R. Arita, T.-h. Arima, Y. Tokura, and S. Seki, Imaging the Coupling between Itinerant Electrons and Localised Moments in the Centrosymmetric Skyrmion Magnet GdRu 2Si2, Nat. Comm.11, 5925 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    G. D. A. Wood, D. D. Khalyavin, D. A. Mayoh, J. Bouaziz, A. E. Hall, S. J. R. Holt, F. Orlandi, P. Manuel, S. Bl¨ ugel, J. B. Staunton, O. A. Petrenko, M. R. Lees, and G. Balakrishnan, Double-Q Ground State with Topological Charge Stripes in the Centrosym- metric Skyrmion Cand...

    2023

  2. [10]

    J. M. Moya, S. Lei, E. M. Clements, C. S. Kengle, S. Sun, K. Allen, Q. Li, Y. Y. Peng, A. A. Husain, M. Mitrano, M. J. Krogstad, R. Osborn, A. B. Puthirath, S. Chi, L. Debeer-Schmitt, J. Gaudet, P. Abbamonte, J. W. Lynn, and E. Morosan, Incommensurate Magnetic Or- ders and Top...

    2022

  3. [11]

    J. M. Moya, J. Huang, S. Lei, K. Allen, Y. Gao, Y. Sun, M. Yi, and E. Morosan, Real-Space and Reciprocal-Space Topology in the Eu(Ga 1−xAlx)4 Square Net System, Phys. Rev. B108, 064436 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    A. M. Vibhakar, D. D. Khalyavin, J. M. Moya, P. Manuel, F. Orlandi, S. Lei, E. Morosan, and A. Bom- bardi, Competing Charge and Magnetic Order in the Candidate Centrosymmetric Skyrmion Host EuGa 2Al2, Phys. Rev. B108, L100404 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    A. M. Vibhakar, D. D. Khalyavin, F. Orlandi, J. M. Moya, S. Lei, E. Morosan, and A. Bombardi, Sponta- neous Reversal of Spin Chirality and Competing Phases in the Topological Magnet EuAl 4, Comm. Phys.7, 313 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    K. J. Neubauer, K. Allen, J. M. Moya, M. L. Klemm, F. Ye, Z. Morgan, L. DeBeer-Schmitt, W. Tian, E. Mo- rosan, and P. Dai, Correlation between Complex Spin Textures and the Magnetocaloric and Hall Effects in Eu(Ga1−xAlx)4 (x=0.9, 1), Phys. Rev. B111, 165136 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    S. W. Lovesey and S. P. Collins,X-Ray Scattering and Absorption by Magnetic Materials(Clarendon Press, 1996)

    1996

  8. [16]

    S. W. Lovesey, Theory of neutron scattering by electrons in magnetic materials, Physica Scripta90, 108011 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    Dagotto, Complexity in strongly correlated electronic systems, Science309, 257 (2005), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1107559

    E. Dagotto, Complexity in strongly correlated electronic systems, Science309, 257 (2005), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1107559

    2005 doi

  10. [18]

    M. T. Littlehales, S. H. Moody, P. J. Bereciartua, D. A. Mayoh, Z. B. Parkin, T. J. Blundell, E. Unsworth, S. Francoual, G. Balakrishnan, D. A. Venero, and P. D. Hatton, Spin Density Waves and Ground State Helices in EuGa2.4Al1.6, Phys. Rev. Research6, L032015 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Stavinoha, J

    M. Stavinoha, J. A. Cooley, S. G. Minasian, T. M. Mc- Queen, S. M. Kauzlarich, C.-L. Huang, and E. Morosan, Charge Density Wave Behavior and Order-Disorder in the Antiferromagnetic Metallic Series Eu(Ga 1−xAlx)4, Phys. Rev. B97, 195146 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    A. H. Abdeldaim, R. Scatena, J. Hawkins, G. Nis- bet, D. G. Porter, G. Barlow, A. Marshall, B. Nutter, G. Beutier, S. P. Collins, and A. Bombardi, One million scans later: The evolution of the I16 material and mag- netism beamline at Diamond Light Source, Journal of Synchrotro...

    2026 doi

  13. [21]

    Supplemental material: Competing collinear and non-collinear spin textures imaged by REXS in Eu(Al0.4Ga0.6)4

  14. [22]

    S. P. Collins and A. Bombardi,Resonant X-ray scattering and Absorption, Vol. 133 (Springer Proceedins in Physics,

  15. [23]

    N. D. Khanh, T. Nakajima, X. Yu, S. Gao, K. Shi- bata, M. Hirschberger, Y. Yamasaki, H. Sagayama, H. Nakao, L. Peng, K. Nakajima, R. Takagi, T.-h. Arima, Y. Tokura, and S. Seki, Nanometric square skyrmion lat- tice in a centrosymmetric tetragonal magnet, Nat. Nan- otechnol.15,...

    2020

  16. [24]

    Matsumura, K

    T. Matsumura, K. Kurauchi, M. Tsukagoshi, N. Higa, H. Nakao, M. Kakihana, M. Hedo, T. Nakama, and Y. ¯Onuki, Helicity Unification by Triangular Skyrmion Lattice Formation in the Noncentrosymmetric Tetrag- onal Magnet EuNiGe 3, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.93, 074705 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    J. A. M. Paddison, G. Ehlers, A. B. Cairns, J. S. Gardner, O. A. Petrenko, N. P. Butch, D. D. Khalyavin, P. Manuel, H. E. Fischer, H. Zhou, A. L. Goodwin, and J. R. Stewart, Suppressed-Moment 2-k Order in the Canoni- cal Frustrated Antiferromagnet Gd2Ti2O7, npj Quantum Mater.6...

    2021

  18. [26]

    S. R. Kotla, L. Noohinejad, P. Pokhriyal, M. Tolkiehn, H. Agarwal, S. Ramakrishnan, and S. Van Smaalen, Bro- ken Inversion Symmetry in the Charge Density Wave Phase in EuAl 4, Phys. Rev. B112, 064113 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    J. A. Sobota, D. Tanaskovi´ c, and V. Dobrosavljevi´ c, RKKY interactions in the regime of strong localization, Phys. Rev. B76, 245106 (2007)

    2007

  20. [28]

    H. Miao, J. Bouaziz, G. Fabbris, W. R. Meier, F. Z. Yang, H. X. Li, C. Nelson, E. Vescovo, S. Zhang, A. D. Christianson, H. N. Lee, Y. Zhang, C. D. Batista, and S. Bl¨ ugel, Spontaneous Chirality Flipping in an Orthogo- nal Spin-Charge Ordered Topological Magnet, Phys. Rev. X1...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Y. Arai, K. Nakayama, A. Honma, S. Souma, D. Shiga, H. Kumigashira, T. Takahashi, K. Segawa, and T. Sato, Origin of Multiple Skyrmion Phases in EuAl 4, Nat. Comm.17, 3162 (2026)

    2026

  22. [30]

    A. R. Denton and N. W. Ashcroft, Vegard’s law, Phys. Rev. A43, 3161 (1991)

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.