Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Atypical Ferrimagnetism in Ni$_4$Nb$_2$O$_9$

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Identical Ni2+ ions carry unequal magnetic moments in Ni4Nb2O9

desk verdict Solid PND measurement of unequal Ni moments in Ni4Nb2O9, but the paper's own DFT doesn't reproduce the moment difference that the proposed hybridization mechanism is meant to explain. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05824 v2 pith:YII3GNCW submitted 2025-05-09 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Jhuma Sannigrahi , Roumita Roy , Richard Waite , Anupam Banerjee , Mohamad Numan , Manh Duc Le , D. T. Adroja , Sudipta Kanungo
show 1 more author
Subham Majumdar
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords ferrimagnetismNi4Nb2O9powderneutrondiffractioninelasticscatteringp-dhybridizationsingle-ionanisotropymagneticdimensionalitydensityfunctionaltheory
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

Ni4Nb2O9 is claimed to be a new kind of ferrimagnet: its net magnetization does not come from two different magnetic elements or two valence states, but from two crystallographically inequivalent sites that both host the same Ni2+ ion with the same S=1 spin. Powder neutron diffraction at 1.5 K refines ordered moments of 1.43 μB on the NiA site and 1.95 μB on the NiB site, coupled antiferromagnetically, giving the net moment. The paper traces this imbalance to local environment differences: NiA sits in distorted octahedra forming quasi-one-dimensional chains with enhanced nickel–oxygen p–d hybridization, which transfers spin density to ligands and lowers the moment, while NiB forms a nearly planar two-dimensional honeycomb layer with weaker hybridization and a near-full moment. Supporting evidence includes bond-valence-sum charge redistribution, first-principles calculations of exchange couplings and site-resolved anisotropies, and inelastic neutron scattering fitted by spin-wave simulations. If the mechanism is right, ferrimagnetism can be engineered in materials with electronically equivalent magnetic ions, purely through structural distortions and spin dimensionality.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of inequivalent Ni sites, NiA and NiB, in the orthorhombic Pbcn lattice. NiA octahedra share edges into quasi-one-dimensional zigzag chains with pronounced distortions; NiB octahedra form nearly planar two-dimensional honeycomb layers. The mechanism is that this difference in connectivity and distortion produces different p–d hybridization with surrounding oxygen—mixing of nickel 3d and oxygen 2p orbitals: at NiA the overlap is large (visible in Wannier functions and in induced oxygen moments of 0.05–0.07 μB), so charge and spin density leak from nickel to oxygen and the ordered moment drops; at NiB hybridization is weak and the S=1 moment stays close to 2 μB. Site-dependent single-ion anisotropy, easy-plane at NiA and easy-axis at NiB, together with the strong inter-sublattice exchange J4, makes the collinear b-axis ferrimagnetic state stable.

What would settle it

Refine the magnetic structure from a single crystal of Ni4Nb2O9, or measure the Ni L3-edge X-ray magnetic circular dichroism with site selectivity: if the NiA ordered moment at 1.5 K is not clearly near 1.4 μB while NiB is near 1.95 μB, or if the imbalance does not correlate with oxygen-projected spin density, the hybridization mechanism is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the ferrimagnetic ground state of Ni4Nb2O9 arises solely from structurally and electronically inequivalent sites of the same magnetic ion, Ni2+. Refined magnetic moments at 1.5 K are 1.429(48) μB for NiA and 1.953(61) μB for NiB, both aligned along the b-axis and coupled antiferromagnetically along c, producing the net moment and the magnetization reversal near 33 K. The difference is attributed to distinct local octahedral distortions and magnetic dimensionality: NiA forms quasi-one-dimensional zigzag chains with enhanced p–d hybridization, a flatter band and a smaller effective mass, so part of the spin density transfers to oxygen and the ordered moment is reduced; NiB forms a nearly two-dimensional honeycomb network with weaker hybridization, preserving a near-full S=1 moment. DFT (GGA+U) finds the ferrimagnetic configuration favored over ferromagnetic by about 74.5 meV per formula unit, with a strong inter-sublattice antiferromagnetic exchange J4 ≈ 18.65 meV, and the spin-wave fit adds site-specific single-ion anisotropy (easy-plane at NiA, easy-axis at NiB) that, together with J4, sets the 7 meV magnon gap. The conclusion is that no mixed valence or distinct magnetic species is needed: local bonding differences alone can stabilize ferrimagnetism.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the enhanced p–d hybridization at the NiA site, evidenced by Wannier overlaps and small induced oxygen moments, is quantitatively responsible for the measured roughly 0.5 μB reduction of the NiA ordered moment; if that reduction actually comes from something the DFT misses, the central mechanism fails even though the measured moments stand.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Other oxides with the same magnetic ion on two inequivalent sites should be re-examined: the criterion for ferrimagnetism is not limited to chemical or valence contrast but includes sublattice dimensionality and local p–d hybridization.
  • The measured moment split implies a compensation point near 33 K and a sign reversal of spontaneous magnetization, which the paper matches to bulk magnetization and heat-capacity anomalies.
  • The site-resolved anisotropies predict a spin gap near 7 meV and two inelastic bands around 13 and 20 meV, as observed by inelastic neutron scattering.
  • Because the NiA moment is reduced by charge transfer rather than by valence change, the same Ni2+ ionic state can support a tunable net moment; the bond-valence-sum data suggest the imbalance is intimately tied to the onset of magnetic order.
  • The DFT and spin-wave parameter sets give a quantitative model of the ferrimagnetic state that can be tested by further neutron work on single crystals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the hybridization mechanism is general, chemical substitution on the oxygen site (for example, sulfur or fluorine) should change the NiA moment reduction in a predictable way, since ligand polarizability controls p–d overlap; this is not tested in the paper.
  • Because the moment imbalance is tied to local bond distortions, applying pressure or epitaxial strain to Ni4Nb2O9 should continuously tune the compensation temperature, offering a mechanical control knob for net magnetization.
  • The DFT (GGA+U) calculation gives nearly equal spin moments on the two sites, so reproducing the measured 0.5 μB split likely requires a treatment beyond the current functional choice; a systematic Hubbard-U or DFT+DMFT scan could reveal whether the hybridization picture survives or whether an orbital-ordering effect is the true driver.
  • The same 'inequivalent sites, same ion' logic could be used to design molecular magnets or metal-organic frameworks where two symmetry-inequivalent metal centers with the same oxidation state produce a spontaneous moment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 paper reports a combined powder neutron diffraction (PND), inelastic neutron scattering (INS), and density functional theory (DFT) study of the insulating oxide Ni4Nb2O9. The central experimental finding is that the two crystallographically inequivalent Ni2+ sites, NiA and NiB, carry unequal ordered magnetic moments (1.429(48) and 1.953(61) uB at 1.5 K) that are antiferromagnetically aligned along b, producing a net ferrimagnetic moment. The authors propose that the moment reduction at the NiA site arises from enhanced p–d hybridization and quasi-one-dimensional magnetic character, while NiB retains a near-full S=1 moment. They support this claim with GGA+U calculations that show enhanced hybridization and induced oxygen moments at NiA, and with SpinW fits to the INS data that yield exchange and anisotropy parameters. The paper concludes that ferrimagnetism in this system arises solely from structurally and electronically inequivalent sites of the same magnetic ion.

Significance. The observation of a spontaneous net moment from two identical-valence Ni2+ sites is unusual and, if confirmed, would be of interest to the magnetism community. The PND measurement of unequal moments is internally consistent: the 0.52 uB difference is roughly seven times the combined statistical error. The INS data clearly show magnetic excitations that disappear above the ordering temperature, and the use of the new powder-averaged fitting capability in SpinW is a practical step forward. However, the proposed microscopic mechanism is not supported by the paper's own first-principles calculation: the GGA+U result gives essentially equal spin moments (1.71 and -1.72 uB) on the two sites, even though the enhanced p–d hybridization is present in that calculation. The SpinW fit is constrained by DFT and point-charge inputs and does not fit the site-resolved moment magnitudes, so it does not independently confirm the moment imbalance. The significance of the manuscript therefore rests on the experimental discovery, while the explanatory framework remains unvalidated.

major comments (3)
  1. [DFT results (paragraph beginning 'To corroborate our experimental findings...') and Appendix A] The GGA+U calculation yields spin moments of 1.71 and -1.72 uB for NiA and NiB, a difference of 0.01 uB, whereas PND at 1.5 K finds 1.429(48) and 1.953(61) uB, a difference of 0.52 uB. The same calculation shows enhanced p–d hybridization at NiA (via Wannier overlaps and induced oxygen moments of 0.049–0.066 uB), yet the NiA moment is not reduced relative to NiB. This is an internal inconsistency: the proposed cause (hybridization) is present, but the supposed effect (moment reduction) is absent. The claim that ferrimagnetism arises 'solely from structurally and electronically inequivalent sites' is not demonstrated without a calculation that reproduces the measured moment imbalance; the authors would need to identify a missing ingredient (e.g., a specific value of U, orbital ordering, or a magnetic-structure effect) that generates the difference.
  2. [Appendix A: DFT methodology] The value of the Hubbard U_eff used in the GGA+U calculation is not specified. The text states only 'we employed an onsite Hubbard U (U_eff = U - J_H)' without giving the numerical value. This omission prevents reproduction of the calculation and makes it impossible to assess whether the near-equality of the Ni moments is robust to reasonable choices of U, which is directly relevant to the central claim.
  3. [Table I and Appendix F: SpinW fit] The SpinW exchange parameters are fitted using ranges 'constrained based on coarse grid searches centred around exchange estimates obtained from DFT calculations and single-ion anisotropies derived from point-charge calculations,' so the 'good agreement' between the SpinW and DFT J values in Table I is partly built into the procedure. Moreover, the inter-sublattice coupling J4 from the SpinW fit is 27.9(8) meV versus the DFT value of 18.65 meV, a ~50% difference that is not accurately described as 'slightly stronger.' The SpinW model uses fixed S=1 spins and does not refine the site-resolved ordered moment magnitudes, so the INS fit cannot independently confirm the 0.52 uB moment imbalance that is the basis of the ferrimagnetism.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and main text] The text contains several spacing and typographical errors, for example 'Ni2 ions' should be 'Ni2+ ions', 'quasi one dimensional chains with enhanced p d hybridization' lacks spaces, and 'Ni 3dand O 2p' should be 'Ni 3d and O 2p'. These should be corrected throughout.
  2. [Section on effective masses (Fig. 2(g,h))] The effective mass values are quoted as m*_NiA = 0.1509 me and m*_NiB = 0.8824 me with four significant figures, but the quadratic fits shown in the insets of Fig. 2(g,h) do not appear to justify this level of precision; reporting two significant figures would be more appropriate.
  3. [Heat capacity discussion (Fig. A1(e))] The text refers to two lambda-like anomalies at T_FI and T_cmp, but T_cmp is a compensation point, not a thermodynamic phase transition. The interpretation of a heat capacity anomaly at T_cmp should be discussed more carefully; it may arise from the measurement protocol or from a field-dependent effect rather than a genuine bulk transition.
  4. [Fig. 3(c)] The labels indicating the peaks at 13 and 20 meV and the shoulders at 15 and 18 meV are very small and hard to read; please enlarge the font or add arrows to make the features identifiable.
  5. [Appendix F: SpinW fitting details] The fitting uses an unweighted least-squares cost function, which can be dominated by high-intensity regions of the powder-averaged spectrum. A brief comment on whether the fitted parameters are robust to weighting choices or to the exclusion of specific (Q, omega) regions would strengthen confidence in the quoted uncertainties.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central moment imbalance is an external PND measurement, and the DFT, BVS, and SpinW analyses are neither fitted to nor definitionally equivalent to that measurement.

full rationale

The paper's central claim rests on an external measurement: powder neutron diffraction at 1.5 K yields ordered moments of 1.429(48) uB (NiA) and 1.953(61) uB (NiB), coupled antiferromagnetically. No equation in the paper defines these moments in terms of the proposed p-d hybridization or BVS valency; the moments are refined from magnetic Bragg intensities and then interpreted. The DFT calculation is not used to produce the moment difference: it explicitly reports GGA+U spin moments of 1.71 and -1.72 uB for NiA and NiB, a difference of only 0.01 uB, so the proposed cause (hybridization) and the measured effect (0.52 uB imbalance) are not made equal by construction. The BVS valency deviations and induced oxygen moments are offered as supporting evidence, not as quantities from which the PND moments are derived. The SpinW fit is a genuine fit to INS data; although the parameter ranges were 'informed by DFT and point charge calculations' in Appendix F, the fitted values are not constrained to equal the DFT values (e.g., J4 = 27.9 meV from SpinW vs 18.65 meV from GGA+U), so the reported 'good agreement' with DFT is a consistency check rather than a forced or self-referential result. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain: the cited prior work concerns previously reported ferrimagnetic order, standard methods, or analogous anisotropy behaviors, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked to forbid alternatives. The strongest concern is an internal-consistency problem, not circularity: the paper's own first-principles calculation does not reproduce the moment imbalance it attributes to enhanced p-d hybridization, and the Hubbard U value is not specified. That is a correctness or evidence-weight concern, but because the central experimental result is external and not defined in terms of the proposed mechanism, the derivation chain is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on the PND measurement (external data) and on DFT and SpinW modelling. The DFT requires the unspecified Hubbard U, and the SpinW exchange/anisotropy parameters are fitted to the powder INS data with DFT-informed priors. There are no newly invented entities. The main 'unpaid' inputs are the DFT approximation itself, the linear spin-wave approximation, and the BVS parameter set.

free parameters (7)
  • Hubbard Ueff on Ni 3d (DFT) = not stated
    The VASP GGA+U calculation uses Ueff, but the value is never given in the methodology, preventing quantitative reproduction and affecting all derived moments and exchanges.
  • J1 (SpinW fit) = -4.8(1) meV
    Intra-chain NiA-NiA exchange fitted to powder INS data, constrained by DFT range.
  • J2 (SpinW fit) = 0.5(1) meV
    Inter-chain NiA-NiA exchange fitted to INS data, constrained by DFT range.
  • J3 (SpinW fit) = -1.54(3) meV
    Intra-plane NiB-NiB exchange fitted to INS data, constrained by DFT range.
  • J4 (SpinW fit) = 27.9(8) meV
    Inter-sublattice NiA-NiB exchange fitted to INS data, constrained by DFT range.
  • Single-ion anisotropy A (NiA) = 0.7(2) meV
    Easy-plane SIA in the ac-plane fitted to INS data.
  • Single-ion anisotropy B (NiB) = -2.13(2) meV
    Easy-axis SIA along b fitted to INS data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption GGA+U density functional theory with the PBE functional captures the correlated electronic structure of Ni4Nb2O9.
    Used throughout the DFT section; the reliability of the moments and exchange couplings depends on the adequacy of this approximation, with an unspecified U value.
  • domain assumption Linear spin-wave theory as implemented in SpinW is adequate for an S=1 Ni system with moderate quantum fluctuations.
    Used in Appendix F to fit the powder INS data; if the magnons are strongly renormalized, the fitted J and A values are biased.
  • domain assumption The magnetic structure belongs to the Gamma5 irreducible representation with FM sublattices and AFM coupling, moments along b.
    The PND symmetry analysis selects Gamma5 among eight irreps; the moment refinement assumes this model.
  • domain assumption Bond-valence-sum parameters are transferable and the refined bond lengths from PND are accurate enough to infer valency changes.
    The BVS analysis in Fig. A3 reports valency deviations without error bars; the charge-transfer interpretation rests on these small structural changes.
  • domain assumption XANES edge positions reliably assign Ni2+ and Nb5+ valences.
    Used in Appendix D to confirm the nominal valence states, supporting the claim that the two Ni sites are electronically equivalent except for hybridization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Atypical Ferrimagnetism in Ni$_4$Nb$_2$O$_9$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YII3GNCW

@misc{pith2026250505824,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Atypical Ferrimagnetism in Ni$_4$Nb$_2$O$_9$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YII3GNCW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05824}
}
read the original abstract

Ferrimagnetism typically emerges from chemically distinct magnetic ions or the same element at two inequivalent crystallographic sites, rendering unequal moments. In contrast, Ni4Nb2O9 has been recently discovered to show a different mechanism, where identical Ni2 ions with the same ligand coordination develop unequal magnetic moments purely due to differences in local environments. Here, we investigate the microscopic origin of this emergent mechanism through a synergy of powder neutron diffraction, inelastic neutron scattering, and first principle based calculations. We demonstrate that the NiA and NiB sublattices, while sharing the same nominal valence, differ in their magnetic dimensionality NiA forms quasi one dimensional chains with enhanced p d hybridization and a reduced magnetic moment, whereas NiB retains a nearly two-dimensional geometry and a full S 1 moment. Our results underscore the pivotal role of spin dimensionality and local structural distortions in stabilizing ferrimagnetism in systems with electronically equivalent magnetic ions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05824 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (color online)(a) Perspective view of the crystal struc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (colour online) (a) and (b) show the site projected GGA+ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (color online) 2D color plots of momentum trans [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. L. N´ eel, Ann. Phys.12, 137 (1948)

    work page 1948

  2. [2]

    I. S. Jacobs, J. Phys. Chem. Solids.15, 54 (1960)

    work page 1960

  3. [3]

    S. J. Pickart and H. A. Alperin, J. Appl. Phys.45, 1617 (1971)

    work page 1971

  4. [7]

    B. Meng, X. Ji, X. Chen, Q. Fu, C. Li, C. Chakrabarti, Y. Qiu, and S. Yuan, J. Low Temp. Phys.207, 115 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [8]

    Martin, L

    C. Martin, L. Herv´ e, D. Sedmidubsky, J. P. Bolletta, F. Damay and A. Maignan, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter36, 225602 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [9]

    J. P. Bolletta, F. Fauth, C. Martin, and A. Maignan, J. Appl. Phys.132, 153901 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [10]

    I. Fita, R. Puzniak, C. Martin, A. Maignan, E. E. Zubov, and A. Wisniewski, Phys. Rev. B111, 014420 (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [11]

    E. R. Fiori, J. P Bolletta, C. Martin, A. Maignan, and O. V. Billoni, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter36, 015801 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [12]

    See Supplementary Material for additional data and anal- ysis

  2. [13]

    C. S. Helberg, W. E. Pickett, L. L. Boyer, H. T. Stokes, and M. J. Mehl, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.68, 3489 (1999)

    1999

  3. [14]

    V. V. Mazurenko, F. Mila, and V. I. Anisimov, Phys. Rev. B73, 014418 (2006)

    2006

  4. [15]

    H. J. Xiang, E. J. Kan, S. Wei, M. H. Whangbo, and X. G. Gong, Phys. Rev. B84, 224429 (2011)

    2011

  5. [16]

    Majumder, S

    M. Majumder, S. Kanungo, A. Ghoshray, M. Ghosh, K. Ghoshray, Phys. Rev. B91, 104422 (2015)

    2015

  6. [17]

    Sannigrahi, J

    J. Sannigrahi, J. Sichelschmidt, B. Koo, A. Banerjee, S. Majumdar, and S. Kanungo, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 31, 245802 (2019)

    2019

  7. [18]

    Roy and S

    R. Roy and S. Kanungo, Phys. Rev. B109, 085107 (2024)

    2024

  8. [19]

    Wunderlich, H

    W. Wunderlich, H. Ohta, and K. Koumoto, Physica B 404, 2202 (2009)

    2009

  9. [20]

    Hautier, A

    G. Hautier, A. Miglio, D. Waroquiers, G-M. Rignanese, and X. Gonze, Chemistry of Materials26, 5447 (2014)

    2014

  10. [21]

    F. G. Eich, M. Holzmann, and G. Vignale, Phys. Rev. B 96, 035132 (2017)

    2017

  11. [23]

    Vaidya, S

    S. Vaidya, S. P. M. Curley, S. J. Blundell, P. Manuel, K. A. Wheeler, J. Ross Stewart, M. Duc Le, C. Balz, T. Shiroka, I. Calderon-Lin, Z. E. Manson, J. L. Manson, J. Singleton, T. Lancaster, R. D. Johnson, and P. A. Goddard, Phys. Rev. B111, 014421 (2025)

    2025

  12. [24]

    Feyerherm, A

    R. Feyerherm, A. Loose, T. Ishida, T. Nogami, J. Kre- itlow, D. Baabe, F. J. Litterst, S. S¨ ullow, H.-H. Klauss, and K. Doll, Phys. Rev. B69, 134427 (2004)

    2004

  13. [25]

    Pitcairn, M

    J. Pitcairn, M. A. Ongkiko, A. Iliceto, P. J. Speakman, S. Calder, M. J. Cochran, J. A. M. Paddison, C. Liu, S. P. Argent, A. J. Morris, and M. J. Cliffe, J. Am. Chem. Soc.146, 19146 (2024)

    2024

  14. [26]

    Vaidya, A

    S. Vaidya, A. Hern´ andez-Meli´ an, J. P. Tidey, S. P. M. Curley, S. Sharma, P. Manuel, C. Wang, G. L. Han- naford, S. J. Blundell, Z. E. Manson, J. L. Manson, J. Singleton, T. Lancaster, R. D. Johnson, and P. A. God- dard, Phys. Rev. B110, 174438 (2024). 6 Appendix A: Methodo...

    2024

  15. [27]

    Thota, M

    S. Thota, M. S. Seehra, M. R. Chowdhury, H. Singh, S. Ghosh, S. K. Jena, P. Pramanik, T. Sarkar, R. S. Rawat, R. Medwal, and B. Weise, Phys. Rev. B106, 134418 (2022)

    2022

  16. [28]

    Newville, J

    M. Newville, J. Synchrotron Radiat. 8, 322 (2001)

    2001

  17. [29]

    Ravel and M

    B. Ravel and M. Newville, J. Synchrotron Radiat. 12, 537 (2005)

    2005

  18. [30]

    Sannigrahi, A

    J. Sannigrahi, A. Banerjee, D. Khalyavin, D. T. Adroja D, and S. Majumdar, Neutron powder diffraction stud- ies of magnetic order in non-centrosymmetric oxides Ni4Nb2O9, (2022)

    2022

  19. [31]

    Rodr´ ıguez-Carvajal, Phys

    J. Rodr´ ıguez-Carvajal, Phys. B: Condens. Matter192, 55 (1993)

    1993

  20. [32]

    Ehrenberg, G

    H. Ehrenberg, G. Wltschek, H. Weitzel, F. Trouw, J. H. Buettner, T. Kroener, and H. Fuess, Phys. Rev. B52, 9595 (1995)

    1995

  21. [33]

    Nakamura, R

    M. Nakamura, R. Kajimoto, Y. Inamura, F. Mizuno, M. Fujita, T. Yokoo, and M. Arai, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.78, 093002 (2009)

    2009

  22. [34]

    Russina and F

    M. Russina and F. Mezei, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A604, 624 (2009)

    2009

  23. [35]

    Arnold et al., Nucl

    O. Arnold et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A764, 156 (2014)

    2014

  24. [36]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  25. [37]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 891 (1998)

    1998

  26. [38]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B47, 558 (1993)

    1993

  27. [39]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. B54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  28. [40]

    V. I. Anisimov, I. Solovyev, M. Korotin, M. Czy˙ zyk, and G. Sawatzky, Phys. Rev. B48, 16929 (1993)

    1993

  29. [41]

    S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. Humphreys, and A. P. Sutton, Phys. Rev. B57, 1505 (1998)

    1998

  30. [42]

    Hobbs, G

    D. Hobbs, G. Kresse, and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B62, 11556 (2000)

    2000

  31. [43]

    Steiner, S

    S. Steiner, S. Khmelevskyi, M. Marsmann, and G. Kresse, Phys. Rev. B93, 224425 (2016)

    2016

  32. [44]

    C. A. Martin, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter3, 5967 (1991)

    1991

  33. [45]

    Klaes, P

    J. Klaes, P. Rothweiler, B. Bornmann, R. Wagner, and D. L¨ utzenkirchen-Hecht, J. Synchrotron Rad.28, 266 (2021)

    2021

  34. [46]

    Tailleur, C

    E. Tailleur, C. Martin, F. Damay, F. Fauth, and A. Maig- nan, J. Appl. Phys.127, 063902 (2020)

    2020

  35. [47]

    Toth and B

    S. Toth and B. Lake, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter27, 16602 (2015)

    2015

  36. [48]

    J. H. Hannay, and J. F. Nye, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General37, 11591 (2004)

    2004

  37. [49]

    R. I. Bewley, R. A. Ewings, M. D. Le, T. G. Perring, and D. J. Voneshen, PyChop (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.