Cerium as a possible stabilizer of ThMn$_{12}$-type iron-based compounds: A first-principles study

Takashi Miyake; Taro Fukazawa; Yosuke Harashima

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 30 references

Cerium as a possible stabilizer of ThMn$_{12}$-type iron-based compounds: A first-principles study

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that treating cerium as tetravalent makes CeFe12 significantly more stable in the ThMn12 structure than the neodymium, samarium, or zirconium analogs, making cerium a promising low-cost stabilizer for iron-rich permanent…

desk verdict A clean screening calculation isolating valency from atomic size in ThMn12-type magnets, but the headline Ce4+ conclusion rests on an imposed f0 occupation that the same calculation contradicts. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02926 v1 pith:U7UOMFZ3 submitted 2019-08-08 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Yosuke Harashima , Taro Fukazawa , Takashi Miyake This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords ceriumtetravalentThMn12structureformationenergypermanentmagnetsfirst-principlescalculationrare-earthironcompoundsvalence

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

This paper uses first-principles calculations to test whether cerium can stabilize the ThMn12-type structure in iron-rich compounds, a candidate for next-generation permanent magnets. It computes formation energies of CeFe12 relative to competing phases under two assumptions about cerium's valence, and finds that treating Ce as tetravalent yields formation energies significantly lower than for NdFe12, SmFe12, and ZrFe12. The authors conclude that tetravalent cerium is a promising stabilizer, and that an element's valence matters as much as its atomic size in determining stability. If correct, this could point toward cheaper permanent magnets using abundant cerium rather than scarcer rare earths.

What carries the argument

The formation energy defined in Eq. (1) as the energy of RFe12 relative to half of R2Fe17 plus 7/2 bcc-Fe, computed with the 4f electrons of the rare earth treated as open-core states with fixed occupation (one electron for R3+, zero for R4+). The analysis plots this energy against the Voronoi cell radius of the R site, revealing two separate trends for trivalent and tetravalent elements.

What would settle it

Compute the formation energy of CeFe12 with a method that treats cerium's 4f electrons as valence states (e.g., DFT+U or a hybrid functional); if Ce4+Fe12 no longer lies below the competing phases, the stabilization claim fails. Alternatively, an experimental synthesis attempt that yields a non-ThMn12 phase at CeFe12 composition would count against the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that when cerium is tetravalent, CeFe12 has a formation energy low enough relative to Ce2Fe17 + bcc-Fe and CeFe2 + bcc-Fe that it could stabilize the ThMn12 phase. The authors support this by comparing formation energies across RFe12 for R = Ce3+, Ce4+, Nd, Sm, and Zr, and by constructing hypothetical tetravalent RFe12 for other rare earths; the formation energies form two distinct curves separated by valence, with tetravalent elements falling lower. They also find that Ce4+Fe12 has a smaller magnetization than NdFe12 and SmFe12 but still appealing enough to warrant doping studies.

Load-bearing premise

The open-core treatment of cerium's 4f electrons with a fixed occupation, and the assumption that cerium has the same valence in CeFe12, Ce2Fe17, and CeFe2, are reliable enough for formation-energy differences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Tetravalent cerium could make CeFe12 an affordable stabilizer for ThMn12-type permanent magnets.
The valence of the R element is as important as its atomic radius in determining phase stability.
Fractional doping of Ce into RFe12 could improve stability with only a small loss of magnetization.
Ce4+Fe12 has lower magnetization than NdFe12 or SmFe12, so composition must be tuned to balance stability and magnetization.

Reading between the lines

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

If the tetravalent-Ce stabilization is confirmed with a method that treats 4f electrons as valence states, Ce could replace more expensive rare earths in permanent magnet formulations, lowering material cost.
The two-curve trend suggests other tetravalent dopants, such as hafnium, may behave similarly to zirconium and cerium, broadening the search space for ThMn12 stabilizers.
The paper's own Fig. 3 shows the tetravalent state is less stable than trivalent within its framework; this implies quantitative formation energies still need a better treatment of 4f electrons, although the qualitative trend across the lanthanide series supports the conclusion.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short, competent screening paper. The genuinely new thing is not just “Ce in ThMn12,” but the clean separation of valency from atomic size: they impose tetravalency on several rare earths and show the formation-energy points fall on a second curve, with Hf and Zr following it as well. That is a useful computational observation and likely to be cited.

The DFT work is standard PBE plus open-core 4f, from a group that knows this material family. The internal consistency is fine, and the lattice-constant agreement with Ce4+ in Ce2Fe17 and CeFe2 gives a credible external anchor.

The soft spot is exactly the one the authors expose in Fig. 3. The headline Ce4+Fe12 formation energy is a constrained quantity: Ce is forced into f0 in the compound and in the reference phases, so Eq. (1) is not a ground-state formation energy. The same framework says Ce3+ is more stable than Ce4+ by a few eV per Ce in CeFe12 and Ce2Fe17. The authors attribute this to “theoretical errors” from GGA and the open-core treatment. They may be right, but the claimed advantage of Ce4+ over Nd, Sm, and Zr is only a few tenths of an eV, so the ranking is not robust until the valency inconsistency is actually addressed, for example with a +U calculation or a mixed-valent estimate. The experimental lattice constants make tetravalent cerium plausible, but they do not fix the formation-energy error.

There are also no error bars and no shipped inputs, which is a minor annoyance in a paper whose conclusions ride on small energy differences.

Who is this for: anyone screening ThMn12-type magnets and experimentalists thinking about Ce substitution. It is a hypothesis-generating paper, not a definitive phase-stability statement. It deserves a serious referee; the right outcome is probably major revision that either attacks the Ce3+/Ce4+ energy error directly or states far more carefully that the result is conditional on the imposed valency. I would not desk-reject it.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports first-principles DFT calculations (PBE, projector augmented-wave, with rare-earth 4f electrons treated as open-core states) of the structural stability of CeFe12 in the ThMn12 structure. The authors compute formation energies of CeFe12 relative to Ce2Fe17 + bcc-Fe and CeFe2 + bcc-Fe, under explicit trivalent and tetravalent assumptions for Ce, and compare the results with those for NdFe12, SmFe12, and ZrFe12. They also compute hypothetical tetravalent RFe12 compounds for several trivalent rare-earths to separate size and valency effects. The central claim is that tetravalent Ce is a promising stabilizer of the ThMn12-type iron-rich phase, and that valency matters as much as atomic size.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, the work identifies an abundant, inexpensive rare-earth element as a potential stabilizer for iron-rich ThMn12 permanent magnets, which is of genuine technological interest. The paper has notable strengths: it makes the valence-state assumption explicit, compares calculated lattice constants with experimental values for Ce2Fe17 and CeFe2, and provides a systematic decomposition of size versus valency effects across rare-earths. The magnetization calculations add useful context. However, the headline result is a constrained formation energy for a hypothetical tetravalent phase, and the paper's own computational framework predicts that the trivalent state is lower in energy for Ce. The external experimental evidence for tetravalency is relevant but not integrated quantitatively into the formation-energy analysis, so the central claim is currently supported only conditionally.

major comments (3)

[Formation energy, Eq. (1), and Fig. 3] The central comparison in Fig. 1 uses formation energies computed with Ce4+ in CeFe12 and Ce4+ in the reference phases Ce2Fe17 and CeFe2. Because the same fixed f^0 occupation is imposed on both sides of Eq. (1), this is the formation energy of a hypothetical tetravalent phase with respect to a tetravalent reference, not the thermodynamic formation energy of the ground-state CeFe12. Fig. 3 shows that within the same GGA + open-core framework the tetravalent state is higher in energy than the trivalent state for Ce (the plotted values at R = Ce are positive). The authors attribute this to 'theoretical errors' of the framework. As a result, the large stabilization claimed for Ce4+Fe12 relative to NdFe12, SmFe12, and ZrFe12 implicitly ignores the valence-excitation energy required to place Ce in the 4+ state; a direct comparison with Nd and Sm is meaningful only if the valence state is the ground state in each system. A concrete fix would be to report the trivalent-constrained formation energy Delta E(Ce3+) = E[Ce3+Fe12] - (1/2 E[Ce3+2Fe17] + 7/2 E[Fe]) and to compare it with the Nd/Sm values, or to compute a mixed-valence estimate using the energy differences in Fig. 3. Without this, the promising-stabilizer conclusion rests entirely on the imposed valency.
[Discussion of valency and external evidence] The paper appeals to experimental reports (refs. 20 and 21) and to lattice-constant agreement to justify tetravalent Ce in Ce-Fe phases. This quantitative evidence is plausible, but it is not connected to the formation-energy calculation. The same open-core method that yields the headline Ce4+ formation energies fails to reproduce the experimental finding that Ce is tetravalent in Ce2Fe17: Fig. 3 predicts Ce3+ is more stable. The manuscript therefore needs either (i) a quantitative recalibration of the 4f treatment (e.g., DFT+U or a Hubbard correction) that stabilizes the tetravalent state, or (ii) a demonstration that the qualitative ordering of formation energies survives under the trivalent or mixed-valence assumption. This is load-bearing because the paper's own results imply that the real material may sit in the trivalent branch, in which case the relevant formation energy is the trivalent one, whose competitiveness with Nd, Sm, and Zr is not demonstrated.
[Hypothetical valency analysis and Fig. 2] The statement that 'the stabilizing effect of an element depends as much on the valency as on the size' is supported only by calculations in which trivalent rare-earths are artificially forced to be tetravalent. This is an internal consistency check of the size-valence correlation, not a falsifiable prediction for real materials, because those hypothetical tetravalent states are never the computed ground states. The claim would be strengthened by a direct comparison of the hypothetical-tetravalent curve with the trivalent curve at the same radius (e.g., at r_R^voronoi near 1.62 Å), but even then the conclusion should be phrased as conditional on the valence constraint.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'significantly less' in the results section (Fig. 1) should be quantified: as stated, it is unclear whether 'significant' refers to statistical significance (there are no error bars) or to a physically meaningful energy difference. Please add explicit numerical values and, where possible, an estimate of numerical uncertainty from k-point sampling or other convergence parameters.
[Tables II and III] The typesetting of the chemical formulas is inconsistent, e.g., 'Ce3+ 2 Fe17' in Table II and 'Ce3+Fe12' in Table I; use a uniform format such as Ce^{3+}Fe_{12}. Also, the experimental reference for Ce2Fe17 in Table II is labeled only by 'Exp. 27' while the CeFe2 row uses 'Exp. 28'; this is clear but could be made more uniform.
[Fig. 3] Figure 3 would be more informative if the numerical values for Ce were given in the text or caption, since the difference between the red and blue bars at Ce determines the correction to Eq. (1) when moving from the constrained tetravalent to the trivalent path. Adding those values would make the major concern above directly quantifiable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Ce4+ assumption is an explicit input, and the formation-energy outputs are nontrivial first-principles results.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is conditional: if Ce is tetravalent (4f occupation zero), then CeFe12 has a lower formation energy than NdFe12, SmFe12, and ZrFe12. The tetravalency is not derived from the calculation; it is imposed as a constraint via the open-core treatment. This is an explicit assumption, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The formation energy in Eq. (1) is a total-energy difference between independently optimized structures, so it is not equal to the input by construction; the calculation could have produced a large positive value. The paper is also transparent that the same GGA+open-core framework makes the trivalent state more stable for cerium (Fig. 3) and attributes this to theoretical errors. That is an honest validity limitation, not circularity. External support for the tetravalent premise comes from refs. 20/21 and from the agreement of Ce4+ lattice constants with experiment (Tables II and III). Self-citations to Ref. 17 concern the open-core reliability discussion and the RFe12 comparison data; Ref. 17 does not contain the present Ce result, so the central claim does not reduce to a self-citation chain. No equation is shown to be equivalent to another by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The only tunable inputs are the imposed 4f occupations. All quantitative outputs are first-principles energies, but the qualitative conclusion is gated by the tetravalency assumption. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)

Ce 4f occupation (valency state) = Ce3+: 1 electron; Ce4+: 0 electrons
Central claim is computed under an imposed valency; the stabilization result is conditional on this choice.
Hypothetical tetravalent state for R = Pr, Nd, Sm, Gd, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Lu = 0 4f electrons
Used in Fig. 2 to separate valency effects from size effects; these states are not experimentally known for those elements.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Density functional theory with PBE-GGA and the PAW method gives accurate enough total-energy differences for formation energies.
All conclusions rest on DFT total energies; Methods section.
domain assumption 4f electrons can be treated as open-core states with fixed occupation satisfying Hund's first rule.
Methods section; the authors explicitly note the open-core treatment causes errors (Fig. 3).
domain assumption The valency of Ce is the same in CeFe12 as in the reference phases Ce2Fe17 and CeFe2.
Used in Eq. (1) and the CeFe2 comparison; if valency differs between phases, the formation energy changes.
domain assumption Ce2Fe17 reported as 'hexagonal' in the experimental literature is actually rhombohedral (R-3m).
Assumed to use the experimental reference; authors note the alternative is unreasonable because lattice parameters would deviate too much.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cerium as a possible stabilizer of ThMn$_{12}$-type iron-based compounds: A first-principles study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U7UOMFZ3

@misc{pith2026190802926,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cerium as a possible stabilizer of ThMn$_12$-type iron-based compounds: A first-principles study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U7UOMFZ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02926}
}

abstract

The structural stability of CeFe$_{12}$ is investigated by using first-principles calculation. The formation energies of CeFe$_{12}$ relative to the Ce$_{2}$Fe$_{17}$ + bcc-Fe phase and to the CeFe$_{2}$ + bcc-Fe phase are calculated with the assumptions of trivalency and tetravalency for Ce. Those values are compared with corresponding results in $R$Fe$_{12}$ for $R=$ Nd, Sm, and Zr. Our results suggest that the tetravalent Ce is a promising stabilizer of the ThMn$_{12}$ structure. We also show that the stabilizing effect of an element depends as much on the valency as on the size of the $R$ element by investigating $R$Fe$_{12}$ where $R$ is assumed to have a hypothetical valency on the basis of first-principles calculation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02926 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (Color online) The formation energy defined as the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. (Color online) Calculated magnetization of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

Ohashi , author Y

author author K. Ohashi , author Y. Tawara , author R. Osugi , \ and\ author M. Shimao ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.342235 journal journal J. Appl. Phys. \ volume 64 ,\ pages 5714 ( year 1988 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1063/1.342235 1988
[2]

author author K. H. J. \ Buschow ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.340865 journal journal J. Appl. Phys. \ volume 63 ,\ pages 3130 ( year 1988 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1063/1.340865 1988
[3]

Yang , author L

author author Y. Yang , author L. Kong , author S. Sun , author D. Gu , \ and\ author B. Cheng ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.340667 journal journal J. Appl. Phys. \ volume 63 ,\ pages 3702 ( year 1988 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1063/1.340667 1988
[4]

Hirayama , author Y

author author Y. Hirayama , author Y. K. \ Takahashi , author S. Hirosawa , \ and\ author K. Hono ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2014.10.016 journal journal Scr. Mater. \ volume 95 ,\ pages 70 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2014.10.016 2014
[5]

Miyake , author K

author author T. Miyake , author K. Terakura , author Y. Harashima , author H. Kino , \ and\ author S. Ishibashi ,\ 10.7566/JPSJ.83.043702 journal journal J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \ volume 83 ,\ pages 043702 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.7566/jpsj.83.043702 2014
[6]

Friedel ,\ 10.1007/BF02751483 journal journal Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965) \ volume 7 ,\ pages 287 ( year 1958 ) NoStop

author author J. Friedel ,\ 10.1007/BF02751483 journal journal Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965) \ volume 7 ,\ pages 287 ( year 1958 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1007/bf02751483 1955
[7]

Verhoef , author F

author author R. Verhoef , author F. R. \ de Boer , author Z. Zhi-dong , \ and\ author K. H. J. \ Buschow ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-8853(88)90037-6 journal journal J. Magn. Magn. Mater. \ volume 75 ,\ pages 319 ( year 1988 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1016/0304-8853(88)90037-6
[8]

Harashima , author K

author author Y. Harashima , author K. Terakura , author H. Kino , author S. Ishibashi , \ and\ author T. Miyake ,\ http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jap/120/20/10.1063/1.4968798 journal journal J. Appl. Phys. \ volume 120 ,\ eid 203904 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1063/1.4968798

Show all 30 references

[9]

Suzuki , author T

author author S. Suzuki , author T. Kuno , author K. Urushibata , author K. Kobayashi , author N. Sakuma , author K. Washio , author H. Kishimoto , author A. Kato , \ and\ author A. Manabe ,\ http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/4/11/10.1063/1.4902176 journal jour...

doi
[10]

Suzuki , author T

author author S. Suzuki , author T. Kuno , author K. Urushibata , author K. Kobayashi , author N. Sakuma , author K. Washio , author M. Yano , author A. Kato , \ and\ author A. Manabe ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2015.10.042 journal journal J. Magn. Magn. Mater. \ volum...

2015 doi
[11]

Kuno , author S

author author T. Kuno , author S. Suzuki , author K. Urushibata , author K. Kobayashi , author N. Sakuma , author M. Yano , author A. Kato , \ and\ author A. Manabe ,\ http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/2/10.1063/1.4943051 journal journal AIP Adv. \ volume 6 ,...

doi
[12]

Sakuma , author S

author author N. Sakuma , author S. Suzuki , author T. Kuno , author K. Urushibata , author K. Kobayashi , author M. Yano , author A. Kato , \ and\ author A. Manabe ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4944521 journal journal AIP Adv. \ volume 6 ,\ pages 056023 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

doi
[13]

Gjoka , author V

author author M. Gjoka , author V. Psycharis , author E. Devlin , author D. Niarchos , \ and\ author G. Hadjipanayis ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2016.06.098 journal journal J. Alloys Compd. \ volume 687 ,\ pages 240 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

2016 doi
[14]

Gabay \ and\ author G

author author A. Gabay \ and\ author G. Hadjipanayis ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2015.10.073 journal journal J. Alloys Compd. \ volume 657 ,\ pages 133 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

2015 doi
[15]

Gabay \ and\ author G

author author A. Gabay \ and\ author G. Hadjipanayis ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2016.08.064 journal journal J. Magn. Magn. Mater. \ volume 422 ,\ pages 43 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

2016 doi
[16]

Kobayashi , author S

author author K. Kobayashi , author S. Suzuki , author T. Kuno , author K. Urushibata , author N. Sakuma , author M. Yano , author T. Shouji , author A. Kato , \ and\ author A. Manabe ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2016.09.311 journal journal J. Alloys Compd. \ volume 69...

doi
[17]

Harashima , author T

author author Y. Harashima , author T. Fukazawa , author H. Kino , \ and\ author T. Miyake ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5050057 journal journal J. Appl. Phys. \ volume 124 ,\ pages 163902 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

2018 doi
[18]

author author A. M. \ Gabay , author A. Martín-Cid , author J. M. \ Barandiaran , author D. Salazar , \ and\ author G. C. \ Hadjipanayis ,\ 10.1063/1.4944066 journal journal AIP Adv. \ volume 6 ,\ pages 056015 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

2016 doi
[19]

Martin-Cid , author D

author author A. Martin-Cid , author D. Salazar , author A. Schönhöbel , author J. Garitaonandia , author J. Barandiaran , \ and\ author G. Hadjipanayis ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2018.03.325 journal journal J. Alloys Compd. \ volume 749 ,\ pages 640 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

2018 doi
[20]

author author K. H. J. \ Buschow \ and\ author J. S. \ van Wieringen ,\ 10.1002/pssb.19700420124 journal journal Phys. Status Solidi B \ volume 42 ,\ pages 231 ( year 1970 ) NoStop

1970 doi
[21]

author author J. M. D. \ Coey , author J. E. M. \ Allan , author A. A. \ Minakov , \ and\ author Y. V. \ Bugaslavsky ,\ 10.1063/1.353705 journal journal J. Appl. Phys. \ volume 73 ,\ pages 5430 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

1993 doi
[22]

Hohenberg \ and\ author W

author author P. Hohenberg \ and\ author W. Kohn ,\ 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B864 journal journal Phys. Rev. \ volume 136 ,\ pages B864 ( year 1964 ) NoStop

1964 doi
[23]

Kohn \ and\ author L

author author W. Kohn \ and\ author L. J. \ Sham ,\ 10.1103/PhysRev.140.A1133 journal journal Phys. Rev. \ volume 140 ,\ pages A1133 ( year 1965 ) NoStop

1965 doi
[24]

author author P. E. \ Bl\"ochl ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.50.17953 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 50 ,\ pages 17953 ( year 1994 ) NoStop

1994 doi
[25]

Kresse \ and\ author D

author author G. Kresse \ and\ author D. Joubert ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.59.1758 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 59 ,\ pages 1758 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

1999 doi
[26]

author author J. P. \ Perdew , author K. Burke , \ and\ author M. Ernzerhof ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 77 ,\ pages 3865 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

1996 doi
[27]

Kramp , author M

author author S. Kramp , author M. Febri , author P. l'Héritier , author P. Ezekwenna , \ and\ author J. Joubert ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-8853(95)01148-X journal journal J. Magn. Magn. Mater. \ volume 157-158 ,\ pages 73 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

doi
[28]

Duc \ and\ author T

author author N. Duc \ and\ author T. Hien ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-8853(94)01284-9 journal journal J. Magn. Magn. Mater. \ volume 140-144 ,\ pages 1113 ( year 1995 ) NoStop

1995 doi
[29]

Fukazawa , author H

author author T. Fukazawa , author H. Akai , author Y. Harashima , \ and\ author T. Miyake ,\ https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.87.044706 journal journal J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \ volume 87 ,\ pages 044706 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

2018 doi
[30]

Fukazawa , author Y

author author T. Fukazawa , author Y. Harashima , author Z. Hou , \ and\ author T. Miyake ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.3.053807 journal journal Phys. Rev. Materials \ volume 3 ,\ pages 053807 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Ohashi , author Y

author author K. Ohashi , author Y. Tawara , author R. Osugi , \ and\ author M. Shimao ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.342235 journal journal J. Appl. Phys. \ volume 64 ,\ pages 5714 ( year 1988 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1063/1.342235 1988

[2] [2]

author author K. H. J. \ Buschow ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.340865 journal journal J. Appl. Phys. \ volume 63 ,\ pages 3130 ( year 1988 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1063/1.340865 1988

[3] [3]

Yang , author L

author author Y. Yang , author L. Kong , author S. Sun , author D. Gu , \ and\ author B. Cheng ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.340667 journal journal J. Appl. Phys. \ volume 63 ,\ pages 3702 ( year 1988 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1063/1.340667 1988

[4] [4]

Hirayama , author Y

author author Y. Hirayama , author Y. K. \ Takahashi , author S. Hirosawa , \ and\ author K. Hono ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2014.10.016 journal journal Scr. Mater. \ volume 95 ,\ pages 70 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2014.10.016 2014

[5] [5]

Miyake , author K

author author T. Miyake , author K. Terakura , author Y. Harashima , author H. Kino , \ and\ author S. Ishibashi ,\ 10.7566/JPSJ.83.043702 journal journal J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \ volume 83 ,\ pages 043702 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.7566/jpsj.83.043702 2014

[6] [6]

Friedel ,\ 10.1007/BF02751483 journal journal Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965) \ volume 7 ,\ pages 287 ( year 1958 ) NoStop

author author J. Friedel ,\ 10.1007/BF02751483 journal journal Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965) \ volume 7 ,\ pages 287 ( year 1958 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1007/bf02751483 1955

[7] [7]

Verhoef , author F

author author R. Verhoef , author F. R. \ de Boer , author Z. Zhi-dong , \ and\ author K. H. J. \ Buschow ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-8853(88)90037-6 journal journal J. Magn. Magn. Mater. \ volume 75 ,\ pages 319 ( year 1988 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1016/0304-8853(88)90037-6

[8] [8]

Harashima , author K

author author Y. Harashima , author K. Terakura , author H. Kino , author S. Ishibashi , \ and\ author T. Miyake ,\ http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jap/120/20/10.1063/1.4968798 journal journal J. Appl. Phys. \ volume 120 ,\ eid 203904 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1063/1.4968798