Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Control of Ferrimagnetic Compensation and Perpendicular Anisotropy in Tb$_x$Co$_{(100-x)}$ with H$^{+}$ ion implantation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hydrogen implantation into TbCo films shifts the compensation composition and the anisotropy transition by about 6 at.% toward higher Tb content, a change attributed to a reduced Tb sublattice moment.

desk verdict Solid quantitative magneto-ionic study; compensation shift is robust, but the stated 6 at.% anisotropy-transition shift rests on a literature baseline and should be marked approximate. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10132 v1 pith:A3GSGWGU submitted 2024-12-13 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Robbie G. Hunt , Dmitrii Moldarev , Matías P. Grassi , Daniel Primetzhofer , Gabriella Andersson This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords compositionhydrogenmagneticanisotropychangescompensationimplantationproperties
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 studies how adding hydrogen to a magnetic alloy changes its properties. The alloy, terbium-cobalt, is ferrimagnetic: it has two opposing magnetic sublattices, one from cobalt and one from terbium. At a particular composition, called the compensation point, the two sublattices cancel exactly. The alloy also has a preferred direction for its magnetization, either perpendicular to the film (out-of-plane) or in the plane, depending on the terbium fraction. Both of these features are useful for magnetic memory devices, and controlling them with voltage would be attractive. The authors used ion implantation to insert hydrogen atoms into thin films of the alloy, with two different doses. They measured the hydrogen content directly using nuclear reaction analysis and elastic recoil detection. They then measured the magnetic behavior with the magneto-optic Kerr effect and a magnetometer. The key observations are that after hydrogen implantation, the compensation composition moves about 6 atomic percent toward higher terbium, and the in-plane to out-of-plane transition also moves by a similar amount. Doubling the hydrogen dose did not push these boundaries further, suggesting the effect saturates. From fits to the magnetization versus composition data, the authors propose that the terbium magnetic moment is reduced by roughly 23 to 26 percent. They also discuss how hydrogen might change the magnetic cone structure of the disordered terbium sublattice. The paper is careful to note that distinguishing a reduced moment from a change in cone angle or exchange coupling requires further experiments such as neutron scattering or X-ray magnetic circular dichroism.
Extended reading notes

Core claim

We find large changes in two important properties: the compensation composition and the Co-rich in-plane to out-of-plane magnetic anisotropy transition composition, both of which move by 6 at.% towards higher Tb concentrations after hydrogen implantation. The paper attributes the compensation shift to a significant reduction of the moment on the Tb sublattice.

Load-bearing premise

The as-deposited value of the in-plane to out-of-plane transition composition xT is assumed to be approximately 10 at.% based on literature (Refs [37,38]) rather than measured in this sample series. The claimed 5-6 at.% shift of xT depends on that baseline; if the true as-deposited xT for these films differs, the quantitative shift changes.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a quantitative study of hydrogen ion implantation in amorphous Tb_xCo_(100-x) thin films across x = 10-39 at.%, using two doses (1e17 and 2e17 H+/cm2). The authors combine RBS, NRA, ERDA, XRR, GIXRD, MOKE, and SQUID magnetometry to measure hydrogen retention, film expansion, magnetic anisotropy, hysteresis polarity, coercivity, and saturation magnetization. They find that after implantation the room-temperature compensation composition xc shifts from about 20.5 at.% to roughly 26 at.% Tb, and that Co-rich films with x = 11 and 13 at.% lose perpendicular anisotropy and become in-plane, which they interpret as a shift of the in-plane/out-of-plane transition composition xT from a literature-derived value of about 10 at.% to a higher value. The saturation magnetization data are fitted with a constant-moment model and an environment-dependent moment model; from these fits the authors infer a 23-26% reduction in the Tb sublattice moment and discuss this in terms of an increased sperimagnetic cone angle. The paper concludes that hydrogen loading effectively shifts both xc and xT toward higher Tb concentrations, with no additional shift on doubling the dose.

Significance. If the central measurements hold, this is a useful and well-quantified magneto-ionic study. Its main strengths are the use of ion implantation to control hydrogen loading with precisely measured retained concentrations, the direct determination of xc from coercivity divergence and hysteresis polarity inversion, and the systematic variation of both composition and dose. These features give the compensation-composition shift a much firmer experimental basis than is common in electrochemical studies, where multiple ionic species can move simultaneously. The proposed Tb-moment reduction and the connection to sperimagnetism are physically reasonable but are model-inferred rather than directly measured, and the xT part of the central claim depends on an unmeasured as-deposited baseline. The paper is of clear interest to the rare-earth transition-metal and magneto-ionics communities, and could become acceptable after the baseline and uncertainty issues are addressed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV, Fig. 5] The claimed shift of xT by approximately 6 at.% is not directly established. The as-deposited value xT ≈ 10 at.% is taken from Refs. [37,38], and no as-deposited sample with x < 10 at.% is measured in this work; indeed, the authors state that all as-deposited samples, including x = 10 at.%, display square PMA loops, which suggests that the true xT of this sputtered series may lie below 10 at.%. After implantation, x = 11 and 13 at.% are in-plane while x = 16 and 18 at.% are only described as 'tilted', so the post-implantation boundary is not a sharply measured value either. The paper should either measure as-deposited films below 10 at.% or rephrase the claim to state that the upper boundary of the IPA region moves from some value at or below 10 at.% to a value between about 13 and 16 at.%, and the abstract should be modified accordingly.
  2. [Section IV, Eqs. (2)-(4), Fig. 7] The attribution of the compensation shift to a 23-26% reduction in m_Tb(x=0) is a model inference from the same Ms(x) data rather than an independent determination, and no uncertainties are reported for the fitted parameters. The model fixes m_Co(x=0) = 1.71 μB and the atomic volumes of Ref. [42], treats m_Tb(x=0) and the environment parameter j as free, and then the same data are used both to locate xc and to constrain the Tb moment. The manuscript should provide confidence intervals or a sensitivity analysis showing how the inferred 23-26% reduction changes with the assumed Co moment, atomic volumes, and j value, and should ideally support the Tb-moment reduction with an element-specific technique such as XMCD. As written, the mechanistic conclusion is plausible but is not on the same evidential footing as the measured xc shift.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) appears dimensionally inconsistent as printed: ρCo and ρTb are described as mass densities, but they are multiplied by an areal/atomic density ρ_at, which does not yield g/cm3 unless the formula is intended to use atomic masses. Please check the definitions and units.
  2. [Section IV, Fig. 5] Because x = 10 at.% as-deposited already shows square PMA loops, the statement that xT is ≈10 at.% in the as-deposited state should be reconciled with this observation, otherwise the baseline for the xT shift is internally ambiguous.
  3. [Section IV, Fig. 7] The Ms(x) data in Fig. 7 are shown without error bars; adding point-by-point uncertainties would strengthen the comparison between the two models and the dose-dependent fits.
  4. [Section V] The concluding sentence contains a duplicated phrase: 'the magnetic properties of magnetic properties of amorphous TbxCo(100−x) alloys' should be corrected.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'implantated' in Section IV, 'imlantation' in the Fig. 2 caption, and 'and and' in Section III; these should be corrected in a final proofreading pass.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the compensation and anisotropy shifts are directly measured or compared to external literature baselines, and the Tb-moment reduction is presented as an explicitly model-dependent interpretation rather than as an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central results—the shift of the compensation composition xc and the shift of the in-plane/out-of-plane transition xT—are obtained from MOKE hysteresis loops, coercivity divergence, loop polarity reversal, and in-plane/out-of-plane loop shapes, not from the model fits. The xc shift is a direct measurement: the as-deposited xc is identified from a diverging coercivity and polarity change, and the implanted xc is identified in the same way. The xT shift is the difference between the observed post-implantation in-plane behavior at x=11 and 13 at.% and an as-deposited baseline of ≈10 at.% taken from external literature [37,38]; this is a robustness limitation, not circularity, because the baseline is not derived from the same fitted data and the paper does not claim to predict the baseline from its own model. The Tb-moment reduction is obtained by fitting the composition-dependent Ms(x) curves to the environmental model of Suzuki et al., and the paper explicitly acknowledges that this is an interpretation: 'It is however challenging to distinguish a reduction in the measured magnetization due to an increased cone angle from a reduction in the Tb-Co exchange interaction,' and it calls for XMCD and neutron-diffraction experiments. Although Eq. (2) plus the observed xc shift algebraically implies a reduced Tb moment under the fixed-Co-moment assumption, the paper does not present the fitted mTb reduction as an independent verification of the measured xc shift; it presents it as a plausible mechanism with stated assumptions. The only self-citation (Ref. [26], which includes one author of this work) is used to argue that thickness variations above 20 nm are unlikely to alter magnetic properties; that claim is peripheral and not load-bearing for the main results. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or fitted quantity is disguised as a prediction. The paper is therefore not circular; the noted xT baseline dependence is an empirical-support concern rather than a circular-reasoning concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. The free parameters are the magnetic moments fitted to the saturation magnetization curves, and the main axioms are standard domain assumptions about material structure, measurement sensitivity, and transferability of prior literature values.

free parameters (4)
  • m_Tb(x=0), as-deposited = not stated in text
    Fitted intercept for Tb moment in the environment model to Ms(x) data; all dose curves are reported as percentage reductions relative to this.
  • m_Tb(x=0), 1e17 dose = 23% reduction relative to as-deposited
    Obtained from the environment model fit to implanted Ms(x) data in Fig. 7b.
  • m_Tb(x=0), 2e17 dose = 26% reduction relative to as-deposited
    Obtained from the environment model fit to implanted Ms(x) data in Fig. 7c.
  • j (minimum Co neighbour count) in environment model = not reported
    Parameter in P_j(x) that controls composition-dependent moment reduction; its fitted value is not given in the text.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Co atomic moment at x=0 is 1.71 uB and remains unchanged upon hydrogen loading.
    Fixed in the fitting model, justified by XMCD data for GdCo in Ref [21]. If false, the inferred Tb moment reduction would be a lower bound.
  • domain assumption As-deposited xT is approximately 10 at.% from literature.
    Used as the baseline to quantify the xT shift; it is not measured in this sample series.
  • domain assumption Atomic volumes vCo and vTb from Ref [42] are constant after implantation.
    Used in Eq (2) to convert magnetization to moment per atom; measured thickness expansions of 4-9 nm are not incorporated into the volume terms.
  • domain assumption Kerr signal at 670 nm is predominantly sensitive to the Co sublattice.
    Adopted from Ref [36] to interpret hysteresis loop polarity changes across compensation.
  • domain assumption Both implanted hydrogen doses produce saturated hydrogen concentration.
    Based on ERDA/NRA showing roughly 20-30 at.% H with no strong dependence on implantation dose or Tb concentration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Control of Ferrimagnetic Compensation and Perpendicular Anisotropy in Tb$_x$Co$_{(100-x)}$ with H$^{+}$ ion implantation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A3GSGWGU

@misc{pith2026241210132,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Control of Ferrimagnetic Compensation and Perpendicular Anisotropy in Tb$_x$Co$_(100-x)$ with H$^+$ ion implantation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A3GSGWGU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10132}
}
abstract

The tuning of magnetic properties through electrochemical loading of hydrogen has recently attracted significant interest as a way to manipulate magnetic devices with electric fields. In this paper we investigate quantitatively the magneto-ionic effect of hydrogen uptake on the magnetic properties of rare-earth transition metal alloy Tb$_x$Co$_{(100-x)}$ in the composition range of $x=10-39$ at.\% using ion implantation. Using this technique we are able to link changes in magnetic behaviour to exact concentrations of hydrogen, isolated from the movement of any other ions that would be a factor in electrochemical studies. The composition of the alloy has been varied alongside the hydrogen dose to characterize the effect of progressive hydrogen loading on the full range of $x$ displaying out-of-plane magnetic anisotropy. We find large changes in two important properties: the compensation composition and the Co-rich in-plane to out-of-plane magnetic anisotropy transition composition, both of which move by 6 at.\% towards higher Tb concentrations after hydrogen implantation. This shift in composition does not increase with a larger dose. From the changes in magnetization we attribute the change in compensation composition to a significant reduction of the moment on the Tb sublattice.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10132 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Changes in the a) GIXRD and b) XRR patterns for a Tb [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. a) Simulated implanted hydrogen ion distribution profile and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. a) Composition dependence of hydrogen concentration, as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. MOKE hysteresis loops for as-deposited (black) and implanted (red) samples with a nominal dose of 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Determination of compensation composition, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. In-plane magnetic hysteresis loops for a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Saturation magnetization as a function of composition for the a) as-deposited, b) 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. a) Schematic diagram of the sperimagnetic structure in TbCo alloys. b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [42]

    D. H. Suzuki, M. Valvidares, P. Gargiani, M. Huang, A. E. Kos- sak, and G. S. Beach, Physical Review B 107, 134430 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Manipatruni, D

    S. Manipatruni, D. E. Nikonov, C.-C. Lin, T. A. Gosavi, H. Liu, B. Prasad, Y .-L. Huang, E. Bonturim, R. Ramesh, and I. A. Young, Nature 565, 35 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [2]

    Jaiswal, S

    A. Jaiswal, S. Roy, G. Srinivasan, and K. Roy, IEEE Transac- tions on Electron Devices 64, 1818 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [3]

    Ederer and N

    C. Ederer and N. A. Spaldin, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 71, 060401 (2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [4]

    Heron, D

    J. Heron, D. Schlom, and R. Ramesh, Applied Physics Reviews 1 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4870957

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4870957 2014

  6. [5]

    K. J. Franke, B. Van de Wiele, Y . Shirahata, S. J. H ¨am¨al¨ainen, T. Taniyama, and S. van Dijken, Physical Review X 5, 011010 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [6]

    R. G. Hunt, K. J. Franke, P. M. Shepley, and T. A. Moore, Physical Review B 107, 014409 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Camara, J.-Y

    I. Camara, J.-Y . Duquesne, A. Lema ˆıtre, C. Gourdon, and L. Thevenard, Physical Review Applied 11, 014045 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    Shuai, M

    J. Shuai, M. Ali, L. Lopez-Diaz, J. E. Cunningham, and T. A. Moore, Applied Physics Letters 120 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0097172

    2022 doi

  2. [9]

    H. Ohno, a. D. Chiba, a. F. Matsukura, T. Omiya, E. Abe, T. Di- etl, Y . Ohno, and K. Ohtani, Nature 408, 944 (2000)

    2000

  3. [10]

    Navarro-Senent, J

    C. Navarro-Senent, J. Fornell, E. Isarain-Chavez, A. Quintana, E. Menendez, M. Foerster, L. Aballe, E. Weschke, J. Nogues, E. Pellicer, et al., ACS applied materials & interfaces10, 44897 (2018)

    2018

  4. [11]

    Bhatnagar-Sch ¨offmann, A

    T. Bhatnagar-Sch ¨offmann, A. Kov `acs, R. Pachat, D. Ourdani, A. Lamperti, M.-A. Syskaki, T. da Cˆamara Santa Clara Gomes, Y . Roussign´e, S. Ono, J. Langer, et al., Applied Physics Letters 122 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0132870

    2023 doi

  5. [12]

    B. X. Tran, J.-H. Ha, W.-C. Choi, S. Yoon, T.-H. Kim, and J.-I. Hong, Applied Physics Letters 124 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0176620

    2024 doi

  6. [13]

    Herrera Diez, Y

    L. Herrera Diez, Y . Liu, D. A. Gilbert, M. Belmeguenai, J. V o- gel, S. Pizzini, E. Martinez, A. Lamperti, J. Mohammedi, A. Laborieux, et al. , Physical Review Applied 12, 034005 (2019)

    2019

  7. [14]

    M. U. Hasan, A. E. Kossak, and G. S. Beach, Nature Commu- nications 14, 8510 (2023)

    2023

  8. [15]

    de Rojas, A

    J. de Rojas, A. Quintana, G. Rius, C. Stefani, N. Domingo, J. L. Costa-Kr¨amer, E. Men´endez, and J. Sort, Applied Physics Let- ters 120 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0079762

    2022 doi

  9. [16]

    de Rojas, A

    J. de Rojas, A. Quintana, A. Lopeand ´ıa, J. Salguero, B. Mu˜niz, F. Ibrahim, M. Chshiev, A. Nicolenco, M. O. Liedke, M. But- terling, et al., Nature communications 11, 5871 (2020)

    2020

  10. [17]

    Ameziane, R

    M. Ameziane, R. Mansell, V . Havu, P. Rinke, and S. van Di- jken, Advanced Functional Materials 32, 2113118 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    Pravarthana, B

    D. Pravarthana, B. Wang, Z. Mustafa, S. Agarwal, K. Pei, H. Yang, and R.-W. Li, Physical Review Applied 12, 054065 (2019)

    2019

  12. [19]

    Zhang, Z.-D

    J.-C. Zhang, Z.-D. Liu, C.-H. Zeng, J.-W. Luo, Y .-D. Deng, X.- Y . Cui, and Y .-N. Chen, Rare Metals41, 3946 (2022)

    2022

  13. [20]

    Takemura, T

    R. Takemura, T. Kawahara, K. Miura, H. Yamamoto, J. Hayakawa, N. Matsuzaki, K. Ono, M. Yamanouchi, K. Ito, H. Takahashi, et al. , IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits 45, 869 (2010)

    2010

  14. [21]

    Huang, M

    M. Huang, M. U. Hasan, K. Klyukin, D. Zhang, D. Lyu, P. Gar- giani, M. Valvidares, S. She ffels, A. Churikova, F. B ¨uttner, et al., Nature Nanotechnology 16, 981 (2021)

    2021

  15. [22]

    A. J. Tan, M. Huang, C. O. Avci, F. B ¨uttner, M. Mann, W. Hu, C. Mazzoli, S. Wilkins, H. L. Tuller, and G. S. Beach, Nature Materials 18, 35 (2019). 9

    2019

  16. [23]

    A. E. Kossak, M. Huang, P. Reddy, D. Wolf, and G. S. Beach, Science Advances 9, eadd0548 (2023)

    2023

  17. [24]

    Z. Xiao, R. Xie, F. Maccari, P. Klaassen, B. Eg- gert, D. Wang, Y . Dai, R. Lizarraga, J. Lill, T. Hel- big, et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00643 (2023), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.00643

    2023 doi arXiv

  18. [25]

    She ffels, P

    S. She ffels, P. P. Balakrishnan, M. Huang, S. Muramoto, J. Borchers, J. Dura, A. Grutter, and G. Beach, Applied Physics Letters 122 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0128835

    2023 doi

  19. [26]

    Ciuciulkaite, K

    A. Ciuciulkaite, K. Mishra, M. V . Moro, I.-A. Chioar, R. M. Rowan-Robinson, S. Parchenko, A. Kleibert, B. Lindgren, G. Andersson, C. S. Davies, et al., Physical Review Materials 4, 104418 (2020)

    2020

  20. [27]

    Bj ¨orck and G

    M. Bj ¨orck and G. Andersson, Journal of Applied Crystallogra- phy 40, 1174 (2007)

    2007

  21. [28]

    Mayer, in AIP conference proceedings, V ol

    M. Mayer, in AIP conference proceedings, V ol. 475 (American Institute of Physics, 1999) pp. 541–544

    1999

  22. [29]

    Str ¨om and D

    P. Str ¨om and D. Primetzhofer, Journal of instrumentation 17, P04011 (2022)

    2022

  23. [30]

    J. F. Ziegler, M. D. Ziegler, and J. P. Biersack, Nuclear In- struments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 268, 1818 (2010)

    2010

  24. [31]

    Krupinski, J

    M. Krupinski, J. Hintermayr, P. Sobieszczyk, and M. Albrecht, Physical Review Materials 5, 024405 (2021)

    2021

  25. [32]

    Bylin, P

    J. Bylin, P. Malinovskis, A. Devishvili, R. H. Scheicher, and G. K. P´alsson, Physical Review B 106, 104110 (2022)

    2022

  26. [33]

    J. M. Swenson and S. A. Norris, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 30, 304003 (2018)

    2018

  27. [34]

    Komander, M

    K. Komander, M. V . Moro, S. A. Droulias, J. M ¨uggenburg, G. K. P´alsson, T. Nyberg, D. Primetzhofer, and M. Wol ff, Nu- clear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 455, 57 (2019)

    2019

  28. [35]

    Pitthan, P

    E. Pitthan, P. Petersson, T. T. Tran, D. Moldarev, R. Kaur, J. Shams-Latifi, P. Str¨om, M. Hans, M. Rubel, and D. Primet- zhofer, Nuclear Materials and Energy 34, 101375 (2023)

    2023

  29. [36]

    Khorsand, M

    A. Khorsand, M. Savoini, A. Kirilyuk, A. Kimel, A. Tsukamoto, A. Itoh, and T. Rasing, Physical review letters 110, 107205 (2013)

    2013

  30. [37]

    Odagiri, H

    M. Odagiri, H. Imaeda, A. Yagmur, Y . Kurokawa, S. Sumi, H. Awano, and K. Tanabe, Applied Physics Letters124 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0196720

    2024 doi

  31. [38]

    Th ´orarinsd´ottir, B

    K. Th ´orarinsd´ottir, B. Thorbjarnard ´ottir, U. Arnalds, and F. Magnus, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 35, 205802 (2023)

    2023

  32. [39]

    Yagmur, S

    A. Yagmur, S. Sumi, H. Awano, and K. Tanabe, Physical Re- view B 103, 214408 (2021)

    2021

  33. [40]

    Alebrand, M

    S. Alebrand, M. Gottwald, M. Hehn, D. Steil, M. Cinchetti, D. Lacour, E. E. Fullerton, M. Aeschlimann, and S. Mangin, Applied Physics Letters 101 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4759109

    2012 doi

  34. [41]

    Harris, K

    V . Harris, K. Aylesworth, B. Das, W. Elam, and N. Koon, Phys- ical review letters 69, 1939 (1992)

    1992

  35. [43]

    Jaccarino and L

    V . Jaccarino and L. Walker, Physical Review Letters 15, 258 (1965)

    1965

  36. [44]

    J. J. Rhyne, in Alloys and Intermetallics , Handbook on the Physics and Chemistry of Rare Earths, V ol. 2 (Elsevier, 1979) pp. 259–294

    1979

  37. [45]

    Uchiyama, Materials chemistry and physics 42, 38 (1995)

    S. Uchiyama, Materials chemistry and physics 42, 38 (1995)

    1995

  38. [46]

    Vas’ kovskiy, O

    V . Vas’ kovskiy, O. Adanakova, K. Balymov, N. Kulesh, A. Svalov, and E. Stepanova, Physics of the Solid State 57, 1142 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    Makarochkin, E

    I. Makarochkin, E. Kudyukov, E. Stepanova, G. Kurlyand- skaya, V . Vas’ Kovskiy, and A. Svalov, inAIP Conference Pro- ceedings, V ol. 2313 (AIP Publishing, 2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Givord, A

    D. Givord, A. Li ´enard, J. Rebouillat, and J. Schweizer, Physica B+ C 130, 351 (1985)

    1985

  41. [49]

    J. M. D. Coey, J. Chappert, J. Rebouillat, and T. Wang, Physical Review Letters 36, 1061 (1976)

    1976

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.