Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 24 references

Gr\"uneisen rule in cubic rare-earth cage systems : the examples of LaB$_6$ and LaPt$_{4}$Ge$_{12}$

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 A two-frequency cage model shows that the Grüneisen rule—constant proportionality between thermal expansion and heat capacity—is violated at low temperatures but approximately restored at intermediate temperatures, with the two regimes…

desk verdict The quasi-harmonic extension of the two-frequency cage model gives a real prediction, and LaB6 confirms it; the LaPt4Ge12 test is much thinner than the paper claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15052 v2 pith:FVRU6GUO submitted 2024-11-22 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Mehdi Amara , Christine Opagiste , Natalya Yu. Shitsevalova This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords cagecompoundsrattlingmodesGrüneisenparameterthermalexpansionquasi-harmonicapproximationspecificheatLaB6Pt4Ge12
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

The paper sets out to show that in rare-earth cage compounds—crystals where a guest atom sits loosely inside a rigid cage—the usual Grüneisen rule, a constant proportionality between thermal expansion and heat capacity, is not a valid description even at low temperatures. Using a two-frequency quasi-harmonic model of the two lowest phonon branches, the authors derive an effective Grüneisen function that switches between two nearly constant regimes: one set by the cage lattice at very low temperatures and another set by the flattened guest-atom branches at intermediate temperatures. They then measure the thermal expansion and specific heat of LaB6 and LaPt4Ge12 and find the predicted change of regime, with crossovers near 11 K and 10.5 K that give guest vibration frequencies consistent with neutron data. The result matters because a reliable phonon background is the first step toward isolating crystal-field and magnetic contributions to thermal expansion in magnetic members of these families.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-frequency phonon model for a cubic lattice of cages, which keeps only the two lowest phonon branches. A guest of mass $m$ oscillates in a cage of mass $M$ with natural frequency $\omega_0$, while the empty-cage lattice has an averaged zone-boundary frequency $\Omega_0 = \omega_0 Y_0$; the mass ratio $\rho = m/M$ sets the gap between the acoustic branch, which flattens near $\omega_0$, and the optical branch starting at $\omega_0\sqrt{1+\rho}$. Volume dependence enters through two Grüneisen parameters, $\gamma_0$ for the guest frequency and $\Gamma_0$ for the cage frequency, linked mode-by-mode through the weight function $f_\rho(y)=\rho/((1-y^2)^2+\rho)$. The function $D_{\mathrm{ph}}(T)$ collects the specific-heat-like weight of modes close to $\omega_0$, and its ratio to $C_{\mathrm{ph}}(T)$ is what makes $\gamma_{\mathrm{eff}}(T)$ temperature dependent.

What would settle it

Measure $\alpha/T$ versus $C_p/T$ on a cage compound with an independently known guest frequency $\omega_0$; the two-frequency model predicts the slope-change crossover at $k_BT_{\mathrm{co}}/\hbar\omega_0 \approx 0.07$ for a heavy guest and $\approx 0.12$ for a light guest. If the observed $T_{\mathrm{co}}$ deviates from these values by more than the experimental uncertainty, the central quantitative prediction is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the quasi-harmonic approximation, the phonon contribution to thermal expansion in a cubic cage compound is not proportional to the phonon specific heat. The two-frequency cage model gives $\alpha_{\mathrm{ph}}(T) = (\chi_0 \Gamma_0/3)[C_{\mathrm{ph}}(T) + (1-\gamma_0/\Gamma_0)D_{\mathrm{ph}}(T)]$ and hence $\gamma_{\mathrm{eff}}(T)=\Gamma_0[1+(1-\gamma_0/\Gamma_0)D_{\mathrm{ph}}(T)/C_{\mathrm{ph}}(T)]$. The ratio $D_{\mathrm{ph}}/C_{\mathrm{ph}}$ vanishes at low temperature and then plateaus at intermediate temperatures, so the effective Grüneisen function takes two quasi-constant values separated by a crossover near $k_BT_{\mathrm{co}}/\hbar\omega_0 \approx 0.07$ for a heavy guest (LaB$_6$) and $\approx 0.12$ for a light guest (LaPt$_4$Ge$_{12}$). The measured $\alpha/T$ versus $C_p/T$ graphs for LaB$_6$ and LaPt$_4$Ge$_{12}$ show the predicted slope changes, at about 11 K and 10.5 K, from which the inferred $\omega_0$ values agree with inelastic-neutron determinations. The model also describes the specific heat of LaB$_6$ below 50 K, while for LaPt$_4$Ge$_{12}$ the specific-heat fit fails above about 15 K because additional low-energy branches of the heavy cage are not included.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on assuming that two phonon branches, described by one averaged zone-boundary frequency, dominate the low-temperature thermodynamics; the paper itself shows this fails for LaPt$_4$Ge$_{12}$ above about 15 K, where missing branches pull the fitted guest frequency below the neutron value.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A constant Grüneisen parameter cannot be assumed when analysing thermal expansion of cage compounds; the phonon background itself has a two-regime structure that must be subtracted before magnetic contributions are interpreted.
  • The crossover temperature between the two regimes provides a direct estimate of the guest vibration frequency $\omega_0$, giving values consistent with neutron scattering for both LaB6 and LaPt4Ge12.
  • For LaB6, the two-frequency model accurately reproduces the specific heat up to about 50 K (roughly $\hbar\omega_0/3k_B$), so thermodynamic analyses of magnetic hexaborides below that scale can rely on it.
  • For filled skutterudites like LaPt4Ge12, the same model is only reliable at the lowest temperatures; by about 15 K, neglected cage vibrations dominate, so quantitative fits to specific heat become misleading.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A practical extension: in magnetic cage compounds where neutron data are unavailable, the $\alpha/T$ versus $C_p/T$ crossover could be used to locate the guest frequency, since only thermal expansion and specific heat are needed.
  • The sign of the $\gamma_{\mathrm{eff}}$ step—higher $\gamma_{\mathrm{eff}}$ below versus above the crossover in LaB6, and lower in LaPt4Ge12—points to a systematic dependence on the guest-to-cage mass ratio; testing this across other cage families would give a rule for how $\gamma_0$ and $\Gamma_0$ compare.
  • If the two-regime Grüneisen signature is generic, then clathrates and skutterudites with well-separated flat phonon branches should show the same slope change in $\alpha/T$ against $C_p/T$, providing a thermodynamic fingerprint of rattling.
  • For magnetic rare-earth cage compounds, subtracting a non-magnetic reference by rescaling a Debye temperature will not remove the phonon contribution cleanly, because the two-regime Grüneisen background cannot be represented by a single effective parameter.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends a previously proposed two-frequency phonon model for rare-earth cage compounds (Ref. [7]) to thermal expansion within the quasi-harmonic approximation. The central result is an effective Grüneisen function γeff(T) = Γ0{1 + (1 - γ0/Γ0) Dph(T)/Cph(T)} (Eq. 25), which predicts that the Grüneisen rule is violated at low temperatures and approximately restored at intermediate temperatures where the flattened phonon branches dominate Dph/Cph. The authors compare this prediction with specific heat and thermal expansion measurements on LaB6 and LaPt4Ge12. For LaB6 the model fits the specific heat below about 50 K and the observed crossover at ~11 K yields ħω0 ≈ 13.5 meV, consistent with neutron data. For LaPt4Ge12 the specific heat fit is only acceptable below about 15 K, and the crossover at ~10.5 K is used to estimate ħω0 ≈ 7.5 meV, again claimed to be consistent with neutron spectroscopy. The paper concludes that the two-frequency model predicts distinct Grüneisen regimes in both compounds, which is intended to help separate phonon and magnetic contributions to thermal expansion in the broader RB6 and RPt4Ge12 series.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers a simple analytical framework for the low-temperature thermodynamics of cage compounds, showing in a transparent way why the standard Grüneisen rule fails and how an approximate rule is restored at intermediate temperatures. The derivation of Eq. (25) is internally consistent, the model is tested against independent thermal expansion data rather than fitted to those data, and the LaB6 example provides a genuine quantitative prediction (ħω0 ≈ 13.5 meV) that matches neutron spectroscopy. The authors are also explicit about the model's limitations, particularly for LaPt4Ge12. However, the LaPt4Ge12 confirmation is substantially weaker: the model is known to fail above ~15 K, and the crossover-based frequency estimate is entangled with the neutron data that were used to motivate the model's parameter choices. Because the paper's joint claim rests on both examples, this weakness is load-bearing, not merely cosmetic.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4.2.2] The inference of ħω0 ≈ 7.5 meV for LaPt4Ge12 from the crossover at Tco = 10.5 K is load-bearing and insecure. Section 4.1.2 states that the two-frequency model fails above about 15 K, that the specific-heat fit yields a peak slightly above 5 meV against the neutron peak at 7.5 meV, and that below 20 K the fit compensates for missing branches by lowering the energies of the included branches. Since the observed crossover lies only about 4.5 K below the model's known failure temperature, the kink in α/T versus Cp/T (Fig. 11) could originate from the same neglected branches that distort the Cp fit, rather than from the Dph/Cph step of the two-branch model. Moreover, case c) was selected in Sec. 2.2 partly because its density of states resembles the neutron spectrum, so the agreement between the crossover-derived ħω0 and the neutron value is not an independent confirmation. Please either extend the analysis to include the additional branches or provide a quantitative assessment of the systematic error in ħω0 before claiming consistency with neutron data.
  2. [Secs. 4.2.1 and 4.2.2] The Grüneisen regime boundaries (13–45 K for LaB6, 11–21 K for LaPt4Ge12) and the crossover temperatures (11 K and 10.5 K) are identified by visual inspection of Figs. 10 and 11, and the reported slopes χ0γeff/3 are given without uncertainties. Since the central claim is that the model predicts the location of the step in γeff(T) through kBTco/ħω0, the analysis should include a quantitative criterion (e.g., segmented linear regression with confidence intervals) to establish the linear regions, to assign errors to Tco and to the slopes, and to test whether the observed slopes are compatible with a constant γeff within each regime. Without such estimates, the claimed quantitative agreement with kBTco/ħω0 ≈ 0.07 and 0.12 cannot be assessed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] The synthesis reference for LaB6 is missing: the text cites 'reference [ ?]' in Sec. 3.1; please supply the correct citation.
  2. [Eq. (21)] The sentence introducing Eq. (21) refers to 'the averaged top frequency Γ0', but the symbol Γ0 is defined as the Grüneisen parameter of Ω0; the text should say 'the averaged top frequency Ω0'.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'skuterrudites' should be 'skutterudites', 'againts' in the caption of Fig. 10 should be 'against', 'strait line' should be 'straight line', 'arrises' should be 'arises', and 'distincts' should be 'distinct'.
  4. [Secs. 4.2.1 and 4.2.2] The text uses the formats 'γef f' and 'γeff' interchangeably; please use a single consistent notation for the effective Grüneisen function.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (25) is a direct algebraic consequence of the two-frequency model, and the thermal-expansion tests use independently measured α(T) and Cp(T); crossover-derived frequencies are consistency checks.

full rationale

The paper's central result, Eq. (25), follows by direct algebra from the two-frequency dispersion model (Eqs. (1)-(22)): after writing each mode's Grüneisen parameter as a weighted combination of γ0 and Γ0 (Eq. (19)), the sums over modes are regrouped into Cph and Dph (Eqs. (23)-(24)). No step defines a target quantity in terms of itself, and no thermal-expansion datum is used to fix ω0 or Ω0 before 'predicting' thermal expansion; those frequencies are determined from specific heat (Sec. 4.1), and the measured α/Cp curves are then compared with the model's Dph/Cph shape. The crossover temperatures give independent estimates of ħω0 (13.5 meV for LaB6, 7.5 meV for LaPt4Ge12), which are consistency checks, not fitted inputs. The authors do cite their own earlier model (Ref. [7]) and prior neutron work (Ref. [19]), but the dispersion relations are re-derived in Sec. 2 and the neutron data are external measurements; no load-bearing argument rests on an unverified self-citation. The LaPt4Ge12 comparison is quantitatively fragile because the same model fails to reproduce the specific heat above about 15 K, but that is a correctness or robustness concern, not a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on two frequency parameters per compound fitted to specific heat, two Grüneisen parameters that remain unmeasured, and a visually adjusted filtering constant. The quasi-harmonic and single-branch assumptions are explicit and standard within the model, but their violation in LaPt4Ge12 is acknowledged.

free parameters (8)
  • ω0 (guest rattler frequency, LaB6) = 14.6 meV (Cp fit); 13.5 meV from neutron inelastic scattering
    Fitted as one of two frequency parameters in the two-frequency model to LaB6 specific heat data below 20 K (Sec. 4.1.1). It sets the temperature scale for the predicted Grüneisen crossover.
  • Ω0 (averaged zone-boundary frequency of empty cage lattice, LaB6) = 44.5 meV (Cp fit)
    Second frequency parameter fitted to LaB6 specific heat; appears as Y0 = Ω0/ω0 = 3.05.
  • ω0 (LaPt4Ge12) = about 5 meV from Cp fit below 12 K; 7.5 meV from neutron peak
    Fitted to LaPt4Ge12 specific heat (Sec. 4.1.2), but the paper states the fit underestimates the neutron value because missing branches are compensated.
  • Y0 = Ω0/ω0 (LaPt4Ge12) = about 1
    Ratio obtained from Cp fit; used to select case c in figures 1, 3 and 5 for crossover interpretation.
  • γe (electronic specific heat coefficient) = LaB6: 2.3 ± 0.1 mJ/(K^2 mol); LaPt4Ge12: 80 ± 6 mJ/(K^2 mol)
    Obtained from Cp/T versus T^2 extrapolations and subtracted before phonon fitting; affects the derived ω0 and Ω0.
  • τ (low-pass filter constant for α(T)) = 1.5 K for LaB6, 3 K for LaPt4Ge12
    Visually adjusted to smooth the numerical derivative of the raw length data; changes the shape of α(T)/T and hence the inferred slopes and crossover temperatures.
  • γ0 (Grüneisen parameter for ω0) = not determined; sign inferred
    Introduced in Eq (20) for the volume dependence of the rattler frequency. No numerical value is extracted; only the inequality relative to Γ0 is inferred.
  • Γ0 (Grüneisen parameter for Ω0) = not determined
    Introduced in Eq (21); no numerical value is obtained. For LaB6 the average γeff over 13-45 K is 2.7, but Γ0 itself is not separated from γ0.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The two lowest phonon branches of a cage lattice can be described by the dispersion relation of Eq (1) with a single guest frequency ω0 and a single averaged zone-boundary cage frequency Ω0, identical for all polarizations and directions.
    Invoked in Sec. 2.1 to replace polarization- and direction-dependent Ys(B) with one Y0; the paper states this is justified by similar observed dispersion curves in LaB6 and filled skutterudites.
  • domain assumption Quasi-harmonic approximation: ω0 and Ω0 depend only on volume, not temperature, and their logarithmic volume derivatives γ0 and Γ0 are constant over the measured ranges.
    Stated in Sec. 2.3 as the basis for the phonon pressure and for the constancy of the mode volume derivatives.
  • domain assumption Measured specific heat is the sum of a linear electronic term γe T and the two-branch phonon model Cph(T) with no other contributions in the fitted ranges.
    Used in Sec. 4.1 for least-squares fits; the paper shows this fails for LaPt4Ge12 above 15 K, making the fitted ω0 unreliable there.
  • standard math The compressibility χ0 is constant in the temperature ranges of interest.
    Used in Eq (10) to convert phonon pressure into thermal expansion; standard quasi-harmonic result.
  • domain assumption For the LaB6 Grüneisen analysis, the published low-temperature elastic constants provide an accurate χ0, and the low-T α data are reliable enough to define the Γ0-dominated regime.
    Used in Sec. 4.2.1 to convert the slope into γeff=2.7; the paper cautions that dilatometer sensitivity is marginal below 8 K, so the low-T slope is uncertain.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gr\"uneisen rule in cubic rare-earth cage systems : the examples of LaB$_6$ and LaPt$_{4}$Ge$_{12}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FVRU6GUO

@misc{pith2026241115052,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gr\"uneisen rule in cubic rare-earth cage systems : the examples of LaB$_6$ and LaPt$_4$Ge$_12$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FVRU6GUO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15052}
}
read the original abstract

In some intermetallic compounds, the crystallographic structure allows for an unusual latitude of movement of lanthanide ions inside so-called cages. Examples of such magnetic cage systems include the rare-earth hexaborides RB6 and filled skutterudites RPt4Ge12 series. In both instances, the rare-earth site, at the center of the cage, is of high symmetry, which may preserve some degree of orbital degeneracy. A deviation from the cage center lifts this degeneracy, yielding an interplay between the rare-earth movement and the system properties in the paramagnetic range. In particular, the low temperature thermal expansion should reflect this cage-specific crystal field contribution. This study presents an experimental investigation of the thermal expansion in the paramagnetic range of some elements in the aforementioned series. From a simple model for the vibrations in cage systems, a description of the phononic thermal expansion is proposed, within the quasi-harmonic approximation. Accounting for this non-magnetic contributions helps discern the influence of the orbital degeneracy at low temperature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15052 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three examples of generic dispersion curves for the lowest branches of a lattice of cages, showing the reduced frequency y = ω/ω0 as a function of the wave vector along a first Brillouin zone segment ΓB. a) Heavy guest (ρ > 1), hard lattice (Y0 = 3) case, here for the ρ mass ratio of LaB6. b) Light guest, hard lattice case for the mass ratio of LaPt4Ge12, keeping Y0 = 3. c) Light guest, softer lattice (Y0 = 1), for … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Representative tetrahedra of the first Brillouin zone: left for a primitive cubic lattice (RB6 case), right for a centered cubic lattice (filled skuterrudites case). Integrals over the first BZ volume can be approximated by a discrete sum of evenly distributed samples in these volumes. 2.2. Calculation over the first Brillouin zone Using the simplified dispersion functions, computing the specific heat, for instance,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Numerical phonon densities of states as functions of the reduced frequency y = ω/ω0, for the same examples as in figure 1. a) Heavy guest (ρ > 1), hard lattice (Y0 = 3) case, the ρ mass ratio of LaB6 and a simple cubic lattice of cages. b) Light guest, hard lattice case for the mass ratio of LaPt4Ge12, Y0 = 3 and a body centered lattice. c) Light guest, softer lattice (Y0 = 1), for the mass ratio and body centered l… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plots of the weight functions fρ( ωq ω0 ) ωq 2 ω0 2 , for LaB6 and LaPt4Ge12, active in the Dph term of the thermal expansion. These two examples are drastically different in terms of the mass ratio ρ, which defines the width of the fρ function, with a heavy guest for …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plots of the ratios Dph(T )/Cph(T ), as functions of the reduced temperature kBT /¯hω0, for the same a), b) and c) examples as in figures 1 and 3. These ratios define the variable part in the γef f (T ) ’Gr¨uneisen’ function, i.e. the deviation from the Gr¨uneisen rule…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Specific heat data for LaB6 (crosses). The inset details the low temperature range. The lines are least squares fits using the two frequencies ω0 and Ω0 model. The continuous line is a fit to the experimental data for temperatures below 20 K, whereas the doted line is …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Specific heat measurements for LaPt4Ge12 under a 1.2 T applied magnetic field, in order to suppress the superconducting transition at TC = 8.3 K, with low temperature detail in the inset. The lines are least squares fits using the two frequencies ω0 and Ω0 model and fi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Thermal expansion of LaB6, as the relative change in length with respect to l0 at 2.5 K, measured on a single crystal with a capacitance dilatometer while cooling down from 60 K to 2.5 K. The inset gives the linear thermal expansion coefficient α, as a numerical deriva…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Thermal expansion of LaPt4Ge12, as the relative change in length with respect to the lowest temperature length l0, measured on a polycrystalline sample with a capacitance dilatometer. The data below 9 K is measured under an applied magnetic field of 1.2 T to suppress t…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Test of the Gr¨uneisen rule for LaB6 by plotting α/T , where α is the linear thermal expansion coefficient for LaB6, againts Cp/T , Cp being the measured specific heat of LaB6. For each temperature in the specific heat data a corresponding α value is identified using …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Test of the Gr¨uneisen rule for LaPt4Ge12 by plotting α/T , where α is the linear thermal expansion coefficient for LaPt4Ge12, against Cp/T . For each temperature in the specific heat data set a corresponding α value is interpolated using the low-pass filtered data, l…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    Amara M, Opagiste C and Gal´ era R M 2020 Phys. Rev. B 101(9) 094411 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.101.094411

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.101.094411 2020

  2. [1]

    Keppens V, Mandrus D, Sales B C, Chakoumakos B C, Dai P, Coldea R, Maple M B, Gajewski D A, Freeman E J and Bennington S 1998 Nature 395 876–878 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/27625

    work page doi:10.1038/27625 1998

  3. [2]

    Sales B, Mandrus D and Williams R K 1996 Science 272 1325–1328

    work page 1996

  4. [3]

    Amara M, Luca S, Gal´ era R M, Givord F, Detlefs C and Kunii S 2005 Phys. Rev. B 72 64447

    work page 2005

  5. [4]

    Amara M, Gal´ era R M, Aviani I and Givord F 2010 Phys. Rev. B 82 224411

    work page 2010

  6. [5]

    Walker H C, McEwen K A, McMorrow D F, Bleckmann M, Park J G, Lee S, Iga F and Mannix D 2009 Phys. Rev. B 79(5) 054402 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.79.054402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.79.054402 2009

  7. [6]

    Amara M 2019 Phys. Rev. B 99(17) 174405 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.99.174405

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.99.174405 2019

  8. [8]

    Gr¨ uneisen E 1908 Annalen der Physik 331 211–216 URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/andp.19083310611

    doi:10.1002/andp.19083310611 1908

Show all 24 references
  1. [9]

    Gumeniuk R, Schnelle W, Rosner H, Nicklas M, Leithe-Jasper A and G rin Y 2008 Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 017002

    2008

  2. [10]

    Gumeniuk R, Kvashnina K O, Schnelle W, Nicklas M, Borrmann H, Ros ner H, Skourski Y, Tsirlin A A, Leithe-Jasper A and Grin Y 2011 Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 23 465601 URL http://stacks.iop.org/0953-8984/23/i=46/a=465601

    2011

  3. [11]

    Jeitschko W and Braun D 1977 Acta Crystallographica Section B 33 3401–3406 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S056774087701108X

    1977 doi

  4. [12]

    Bauer E D, Frederick N A, Ho P C, Zapf V S and Maple M B 2002 Phys. Rev. B 65(10) 100506 URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.65.100506 Gr¨ uneisen rule in cubic lanthanum cage systems 23

    2002 doi

  5. [13]

    Iwasa K, Hao L, Kuwahara K, Kohgi M, Saha S R, Sugawara H, Ao ki Y, Sato H, Tayama T and Sakakibara T 2005 Phys. Rev. B 72(2) 024414 URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.72.024414

    2005 doi

  6. [14]

    Keller L, Fischer P, Herrmannsd¨ orfer T, D¨ onni A, Sugawara H, Matsuda T, Abe K, Aoki Y and Sato H 2001 Journal of Alloys and Compounds 323–324 516 – 519 ISSN 0925-8388 proceedings of the 4th International Conferen ce on f-Elements URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...

    2001

  7. [15]

    Mandrus D, Sales B and Jin R 2001 Phys. Rev. B 64 12302

    2001

  8. [16]

    Smith H G, Dolling G, Kunii S, Kasaya M, Liu B, Takegahara K, Ka- suya T and Goto T 1985 Solid State Communications 53 15–19 URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003810988590674X

    1985

  9. [17]

    Lee C H, Hase I, Sugawara H, Yoshizawa H and Sato H 2006 Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 75 123602 URL http://jpsj.ipap.jp/link?JPSJ/75/123602/

    2006

  10. [18]

    Marek Koza M, Adroja D, Takeda N, Henkie Z and Cichorek T 2013 Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 82 114607 ( Preprint https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.82.114607) URL https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.82.114607

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    Gal´ era R M, Opagiste C, Amara M, Zbiri M and Rols S 2015 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 592 012011 URL http://stacks.iop.org/1742-6596/592/i=1/a=012011

    2015

  12. [20]

    Ashcroft N W and Mermin N D 1976 Solid State Physics (Holt-Saunders)

    1976

  13. [21]

    Series A

    White G K and Mendelssohn K A G 1965 Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 286 204–217 URL https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspa.1965.0139

    1965

  14. [22]

    Paderno Y B, Lazorenko V I and Kovalev A V 1981 Soviet Powder Metallurgy and Metal Ceramics 20 717–721 URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00791052

    1981 doi

  15. [23]

    Hwang J S, Lin K J and Tien C 1997 Review of Scientific Instruments 68 94–101 ( Preprint https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1147722) URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1147722

    1997 doi

  16. [24]

    Nakamura S, Goto T, Kunii S, Iwashita K and Tamaki A 1994 Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 63 623–636 ( Preprint https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.63.623) URL https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.63.623

    1994 doi

Pith tools

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