Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 38 references

Non-Equilibrium Multiplet Excitations probed by the $M_{5,4}$ Branching Ratio in $3d \rightarrow 4f$ X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ultrafast laser excitation of terbium changes the M5/M4 X-ray absorption branching ratio by 2.0 ± 0.2%, tracking a 4f multiplet transition from J=6 to J=5.

desk verdict A practically useful low-resolution probe of ultrafast J-changing 4f excitations, with a solid core measurement and a population estimate whose quoted error bars are too optimistic. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19630 v1 pith:COQTHC3U submitted 2025-04-28 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-el

Tim Amrhein , Beyza Salantur , Ralph Püttner , Niko Pontius , Karsten Holldack , Ru-Pan Wang , Christian Schü{ss}ler-Langeheine , Martin Weinelt
show 1 more author
Nele Thielemann-Kühn
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el
keywords X-rayabsorptionspectroscopybranchingratiomultipletexcitationsterbiumultrafastdynamicstotalangularmomentumThole–vanderLaanrulepump-probe
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 shows that a femtosecond laser pulse changes the branching ratio of the M5 and M4 X-ray absorption resonances in metallic terbium, and that this change can be read as a quantitative measure of how the total angular momentum $J$ of the $4f$ electrons is altered out of equilibrium. The measured branching ratio drops by $2.0 \pm 0.2\%$ within 400 fs, which the authors model as a superposition of atomistically computed ground-state ${}^{7}F_{6}$ and excited ${}^{7}F_{5}$ spectra, corresponding to $21 \pm 2\%$ excited ions. This demonstrates that the third rule of Thole and van der Laan, which links the branching ratio to $J$ in equilibrium, also holds for short-lived excited states. Because the method relies on integrated intensities rather than magnetic contrast or high energy resolution, it opens a route to tracking ultrafast angular momentum changes in non-magnetic samples and at X-ray sources with limited photon flux.

What carries the argument

The central object is the branching ratio $B = I_{M_5}/(I_{M_5}+I_{M_4})$ of the $3d \to 4f$ XAS resonances, whose deviation from the statistical value $B_0 = 3/5$ encodes the electrostatic interaction between the core hole and the $4f$ electrons. For a more-than-half-filled shell the third rule of Thole and van der Laan states that $B$ grows with total angular momentum $J$; the paper uses atomistic multiplet calculations to compute the full ${}^{7}F_6$ and ${}^{7}F_5$ absorption spectra and models the transient pumped state as a static superposition of these two spectra. The argument is carried by the fact that the 1.55 eV pump photon cannot drive $4f \to 5d$ or $5d \to 4f$ transitions directly (the relevant gaps are 2.3 and 2.8 eV), so the observed $\Delta B$ must arise from $5d6s$ hot-electron scattering that excites $4f$ multiplets, not from optical pumping of the $4f$ shell.

What would settle it

A decisive test is to measure the full pumped-minus-unpumped difference spectrum across the $M_5$ and $M_4$ edges at the same pump fluence and compare its shape to the atomistically predicted difference between the ${}^{7}F_5$ and ${}^{7}F_6$ spectra. If the line shapes deviate beyond noise, or if time-resolved RIXS at comparable excitation density reveals transient multiplet energy shifts (which would indicate screening changes), the extracted $21 \pm 2\%$ excited fraction and the out-of-equilibrium validity of the third rule would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the spin-orbit-split $M_5$ and $M_4$ X-ray absorption resonances of terbium respond oppositely to near-infrared excitation, and the relative spectral weight between them follows the total angular momentum $J$ of the $4f$ shell even when the system is far from equilibrium. Experimentally, the branching ratio $B = I_{M_5}/(I_{M_5}+I_{M_4})$ decreases by $2.0 \pm 0.2\%$ within the first 400 fs after an 800 nm pump pulse, with a rise time of $80 \pm 10$ fs and a recovery time of $1.5 \pm 0.2$ ps. The authors assign this to the $4f$ multiplet transition ${}^{7}F_6 \to {}^{7}F_5$, a change of $\Delta J = -1$, driven by inelastic scattering of laser-heated $5d6s$ electrons; they extract $21 \pm 2\%$ excited ${}^{7}F_5$ ions in the probed volume. On this basis the paper asserts that the third rule of Thole and van der Laan, which holds that the branching ratio increases with $J$, remains valid in non-equilibrium, making branching-ratio spectroscopy a quantitative probe of ultrafast changes in angular momentum without requiring net magnetization.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative result assumes that the laser pulse leaves the shape of each individual multiplet spectrum unchanged and only shifts population from the ground state to the first excited $4f$ state, so any additional change, such as altered electron screening or contributions from higher-energy multiplets, is small enough to ignore.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The third rule of Thole and van der Laan holds for short-lived excited states, validating branching-ratio analysis as a quantitative tool for $J$-changing multiplet excitations in pump-probe experiments.
  • The method requires only integrated intensities of the two spin-orbit-split resonances, so it works at moderate energy resolution and low photon flux, including storage-ring femtoslicing sources and potentially monochromator-free setups.
  • Branching-ratio spectroscopy detects changes in spin and orbital states without magnetic contrast, extending ultrafast angular momentum studies to non-magnetic or paramagnetic samples.
  • The extracted $21 \pm 2\%$ ${}^{7}F_5$ population at 400 fs provides a quantitative benchmark for the $5d6s$ hot-electron-driven $4f$ excitation channel in rare-earth metals.
  • Combining time-resolved branching ratio with XMCD may connect multiplet excitation dynamics to magnetic order dynamics in magnetically ordered samples.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the calibration holds, the sensitivity of the branching ratio to $J$ varies across the rare-earth series, so the same technique could quantify ultrafast $J$ changes in other $4f$ metals; the dynamic range and sign of $\Delta B$ depend on whether the ground state is less than or more than half-filled.
  • The recovery time of $1.5 \pm 0.2$ ps links the $4f$ excitation population to the hot-electron temperature, suggesting branching-ratio dynamics could serve as a local thermometer for electron-phonon relaxation in rare-earth films.
  • At higher pump fluences, population of ${}^{7}F_4$ or of quintet multiplets such as ${}^{5}D_4$ is expected to become non-negligible, and the paper's own supplemental analysis shows these states mix with ${}^{7}F_4$; a fluence-dependence study of the branching-ratio change would test whether the simple two-state superposition remains valid.
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 / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports time-resolved soft X-ray transmission measurements at the Tb M5 and M4 edges in metallic terbium after 800-nm laser excitation. The authors observe opposite transient changes at the two resonances, corresponding to a relative decrease of the M5,4 branching ratio by about 2.0 ± 0.2% within 400 fs, with a rise time of about 80 fs and a recovery time constant of about 1.5 ps. By comparing the measured branching-ratio change with atomistically calculated 7F6 and 7F5 spectra, they infer that about 21 ± 2% of Tb ions are excited into the 7F5 multiplet, and they argue that this demonstrates the validity of the Thole–van der Laan third rule for non-equilibrium states. The paper proposes branching-ratio spectroscopy as a low-resolution, magnetic-contrast-free probe of ultrafast changes in the 4f total angular momentum J.

Significance. The direct measurement of a pump-induced branching-ratio change at the Tb M5,4 edges is a clear and useful experimental result. The opposite sign of the M5 and M4 responses and the time constants that match the earlier high-resolution XAS/RIXS experiment make the core observation robust and methodologically attractive: branching-ratio changes can be detected with moderate energy resolution and without magnetic contrast. If the quantitative calibration is made reliable, the method would be a valuable tool for studying ultrafast 4f multiplet dynamics in non-magnetic samples. However, the paper's central quantitative claim, the 21 ± 2% excited-ion fraction, is more fragile than the quoted uncertainty suggests, and the claim to have proven the third rule of Thole and van der Laan under non-equilibrium conditions goes beyond what the data can establish.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, Fig. 2d; SM §F] The conversion of the measured 2.0 ± 0.2% branching-ratio drop into a 21 ± 2% excited 7F5 fraction depends entirely on the atomistic calibration ratio B(7F5)/B(7F6) = 0.904. The Supplemental Material itself derives an alternative Thole–van der Laan ratio of 0.933 (SM §F), which for the same measured drop implies about 30% excited ions. The quoted ±2% therefore reflects only the statistical error of the branching-ratio measurement, not the model uncertainty in the calibration. Because the abstract presents the 21 ± 2% value as a quantitative result, the authors should either propagate the full model uncertainty into a defensible range or provide a concrete justification for why the atomistic ratio is uniquely reliable under the pump conditions.
  2. [Main text, Fig. 2a and Fig. 2c] The measured unpumped branching ratio is 0.73 ± 0.02, while the atomistic 7F6 calculation gives about 0.76. The authors describe this as a fairly good match, but the 4% offset is comparable to the 2.0% pump-induced change that the calibration is based on. The conversion to an excited-ion fraction uses only the ratio of computed 7F5 and 7F6 branching ratios, not the measured absolute branching ratio, so the static offset is never propagated into the population estimate. The authors should quantify how the inferred excited fraction changes if the calibration is anchored to the measured unpumped branching ratio, or otherwise demonstrate that the offset does not affect the conclusion.
  3. [Main text, final discussion; SM Fig. S3 and main-text limitation statement] The claim that the third rule of Thole and van der Laan is 'proven' to hold in non-equilibrium rests on the assumption that the transient spectrum is an unmodified superposition of computed 7F6 and 7F5 spectra. This is the very point at issue: the experiment measures a branching-ratio change, not J directly. The authors' argument against pump-induced screening changes relies on the absence of transient multiplet energy shifts in the prior RIXS experiment (Ref. [5]), which is indirect. The main text also states that possible contributions from energetically higher lying multiplets were neglected; SM Fig. S3 shows that states such as 7F4 can mix with 7F states and affect the branching ratio. A more direct test would be a comparison of the measured transient difference spectrum with the predicted 7F6→7F5 difference spectrum, including a quantitative bound on neglected multiplet contributions. Without such a test, the language 'prove' should be softened to 'consistent with', and the non-equilibrium validity of the third rule should be presented as a supported inference rather than a demonstrated fact.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction, paragraph 2] In the sentence ending 'can be studies even in non-magnetic samples', 'studies' should be 'studied'.
  2. [Main text, paragraph describing Fig. 1b] The sentence listing the delay-trace energies gives both M5 and M4 as 1236.4 eV; the M4 energy should be 1264.2 eV, as correctly stated in the Fig. 1 caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the measured branching-ratio change is independent of the modeling, and the atomistic calibration is a prior external calculation, not a fit to the transient data.

full rationale

The paper's central observable is the relative change of the M5/M4 integrated branching ratio, measured shot-to-shot against a reference; this quantity does not depend on the atomistic model. The conversion to 21±2% excited 7F5 ions is a forward calibration: the authors take precomputed spectra for the 7F6 and 7F5 multiplets from their prior RIXS/XAS study (Ref. [5]) and invert the measured −2.0±0.2% branching-ratio change through a linear superposition of those spectra. No parameter of that calculation is fitted to the 400 fs transient, and the inferred population is cross-checked against an independent absorbed-energy-density estimate of 16–20% from the same prior experiment, so the central number is not determined by construction. The static unpumped branching ratio (0.73±0.02 measured vs about 0.76 computed) provides an unfitted benchmark. The Supplemental Material's alternative Thole–van der Laan ratio of 0.933 versus the atomistic 0.904 is a model-uncertainty caveat that would shift the inferred excited fraction toward about 30%, but it is not a circular step: both calibration ratios are external inputs, not outputs of the present measurement. The qualitative opposite M5/M4 dynamics, the ~80 fs response time, and the direction of the branching-ratio change are read directly from the data and do not rely on the model. The paper therefore does not reduce its claims to its inputs; the main weakness is quantitative calibration uncertainty rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative claim depends on a small set of modeling assumptions rather than on new free parameters: a scalar mixture of two calculated multiplet spectra, unchanged Slater-Condon screening, negligible crystal field, no higher-lying states, and a specific background form. The paper explicitly states most of these assumptions, which is good practice, but they are not independently verified here. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Background model parameters (s1, s2, offX, offY, sc1, sc2) = Tab. S1; s1 ranges from 4e-9 to 5e-5 across delays
    Six-parameter polynomial plus two broadened edge jumps used to separate M5/M4 resonance integrals from non-resonant background. Values are refit for each pump-probe delay; their systematic uncertainty is not propagated into the 2.0 ± 0.2% branching ratio change.
  • M5 and M4 integration energy regions = Not listed numerically in main text; marked in Fig. 2a,b
    Manual choice of integration windows defining IM5 and IM4; the branching ratio value depends on these boundaries. No sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Delay trace fit parameters (t0, tau1, tau2, A, C) = tau1 = 80 ± 10 fs, tau2 = 1.5 ± 0.2 ps
    Exponential convolution parameters characterize the M5 and M4 dynamics and are used to compare with the earlier RIXS experiment; they do not enter the branching-ratio population estimate.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The transient XAS can be modeled as a scalar superposition of ground 7F6 and excited 7F5 spectra; higher-lying multiplet contributions are negligible.
    Main text after Fig. 2d: 'We have neglected possible but minor contributions from energetically higher lying states of the multiplets.' This is load-bearing for the 21 ± 2% excited fraction.
  • domain assumption Slater-Condon and crystal-field parameters are unchanged by the 800 nm pump; electronic screening is not altered on the probed timescale.
    Paragraph after Fig. 2d argues that absence of transient RIXS energy shifts in Ref. [5] excludes pump-induced screening changes. This is indirect support, not a direct measurement in this paper.
  • domain assumption The third rule of Thole and van der Laan, derived for static ground states under LS coupling, applies to transiently populated 4f multiplets.
    The paper's central inference converts a branching ratio change into a J change using this rule; the rule itself is taken from Refs. [24,26] and the SM derivation, not re-derived for the excited state.
  • domain assumption The 800 nm pump excites only 5d6s valence electrons; direct 4f optical excitation requires 2.8 or 2.3 eV.
    Used to assign the observed effect to inelastic 5d-4f scattering rather than direct f-f pumping; energies cited from Ref. [30].
  • domain assumption The background model (second-order polynomial plus two broadened edge jumps) correctly separates resonant M5/M4 absorption from all non-resonant contributions.
    SM B. The branching ratio is computed from background-corrected spectra; if the true background is not of this form, B changes spuriously.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Equilibrium Multiplet Excitations probed by the $M_{5,4}$ Branching Ratio in $3d \rightarrow 4f$ X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/COQTHC3U

@misc{pith2026250419630,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Equilibrium Multiplet Excitations probed by the $M_5,4$ Branching Ratio in $3d \rightarrow 4f$ X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/COQTHC3U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19630}
}
abstract

We show that ultrafast electronic $4f$ multiplet transitions in terbium metal are manifested by changes in the relative spectral weight of the $M_5$ and $M_4$ X-ray absorption resonances. Our experimental results are supported by a simulation of excited multiplet spectra with atomistic calculations; they prove that the so-called third rule of Thole and van der Laan, which relates the branching ratio of the spin-orbit split resonances to the total angular momentum $J$ of the excited ion, is also valid in non-equilibrium. The presented detection scheme allows to detect $J$-changing excitation, \textit{i.e}, alterations of spin and orbital states, even in samples without net magnetization. This makes branching-ratio spectroscopy a powerful tool for the quantitative investigation of ultrafast changes in angular momentum $J$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19630 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Experimental Tb [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Quantitative evaluation of branching ratio (a) Background-corrected Tb [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    Thielemann-K¨ uhn, T

    N. Thielemann-K¨ uhn, T. Amrhein, W. Bronsch, S. Jana, N. Pontius, R. Y. Engel, P. S. Miedema, D. Legut, K. Carva, U. Atxitia, B. E. van Kuiken, M. Teichmann, R. E. Carley, L. Mercadier, A. Yaroslavtsev, G. Mer- curio, L. L. Guyader, N. Agarwal, R. Gort, A. Scherz, S. Dziarzhytski, G. Brenner, F. Pressacco, R.-P. Wang, J. O. Schunck, M. Sinha, M. Beye, G....

    2024

  2. [1]

    S. I. Anisimov, Kapeliovich, B. L., and T. L. Perel’man, Electron emission from metal surfaces exposed to ultra- short laser pulses, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 66, 776 (1974)

    work page 1974

  3. [2]

    P. B. Allen, Theory of thermal relaxation of electrons in metals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 1460 (1987)

    work page 1987

  4. [3]

    Koopmans, G

    B. Koopmans, G. Malinowski, F. Dalla Longa, D. Steiauf, M. F¨ ahnle, T. Roth, M. Cinchetti, and M. Aeschlimann, Explaining the paradoxical diversity of ultrafast laser- induced demagnetization, Nature Materials 9, 259–265 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [4]

    Willems, C

    F. Willems, C. von Korff Schmising, C. Str¨ uber, D. Schick, D. W. Engel, J. K. Dewhurst, P. Elliott, S. Sharma, and S. Eisebitt, Optical inter-site spin transfer probed by energy and spin-resolved transient absorption spectroscopy, Nature Communications 11, 871 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Pontius, J

    N. Pontius, J. K. Dewhurst, C. Schuessler-Langeheine, S. Jana, C. v. Korff Schmising, S. Eisebitt, S. Shallcross, and S. Sharma, Mapping the energy-time landscape of spins with helical x-rays (2022), arXiv:2205.03172 [cond- mat.mtrl-sci]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Kimel, A

    A. Kimel, A. Kirilyuk, A. Tsvetkov, R. Pisarev, and T. Rasing, Laser-induced ultrafast spin reorientation in the antiferromagnet tmfeo3, Nature 429, 850 (2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Mikhaylovskiy, T

    R. Mikhaylovskiy, T. Huisman, A. Popov, A. Zvezdin, T. Rasing, R. Pisarev, and A. Kimel, Terahertz magneti- zation dynamics induced by femtosecond resonant pump- ing of dy 3+ subsystem in the multisublattice antiferro- magnet dyfeo 3, Physical Review B 92, 094437 (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Baierl, M

    S. Baierl, M. Hohenleutner, T. Kampfrath, A. Zvezdin, A. Kimel, R. Huber, and R. Mikhaylovskiy, Nonlinear spin control by terahertz-driven anisotropy fields, Nature Photonics 10, 715 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Schlauderer, C

    S. Schlauderer, C. Lange, S. Baierl, T. Ebnet, C. P. Schmid, D. Valovcin, A. Zvezdin, A. Kimel, R. Mikhaylovskiy, and R. Huber, Temporal and spectral fingerprints of ultrafast all-coherent spin switching, Na- ture 569, 383 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Fitzky, M

    G. Fitzky, M. Nakajima, Y. Koike, A. Leitenstorfer, and T. Kurihara, Ultrafast control of magnetic anisotropy by resonant excitation of 4 f electrons and phonons in sm 0.7 er 0.3 feo 3, Physical Review Letters 127, 107401 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Frietsch, A

    B. Frietsch, A. Donges, R. Carley, M. Teichmann, J. Bowlan, K. D¨ obrich, K. Carva, D. Legut, P. M. Op- peneer, U. Nowak, and M. Weinelt, The role of ultra- fast magnon generation in the magnetization dynamics of rare-earth metals, Science Advances 6, eabb1601 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    J. K. Dewhurst, P. Elliott, S. Shallcross, E. K. U. Gross, and S. Sharma, Laser-induced intersite spin transfer, Nano Letters 18, 1842 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    E. I. Harris-Lee, J. K. Dewhurst, S. Shallcross, and S. Sharma, Spin vacuum switching, Science Advances10, eado6390 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Siegrist, J

    F. Siegrist, J. A. Gessner, M. Ossiander, C. Denker, Y.-P. Chang, M. C. Schr¨ oder, A. Guggenmos, Y. Cui, J. Walowski, U. Martens, J. K. Dewhurst, U. Kleineberg, M. M¨ unzenberg, S. Sharma, and M. Schultze, Light-wave dynamic control of magnetism, Nature 571, 240 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Hofherr, S

    M. Hofherr, S. H¨ auser, J. K. Dewhurst, P. Tengdin, S. Sakshath, H. T. Nembach, S. T. Weber, J. M. Shaw, T. J. Silva, H. C. Kapteyn, M. Cinchetti, B. Rethfeld, M. M. Murnane, D. Steil, B. Stadtm¨ uller, S. Sharma, M. Aeschlimann, and S. Mathias, Ultrafast optically in- duced ...

    2020

  9. [17]

    Golias, I

    E. Golias, I. Kumberg, I. Gelen, S. Thakur, J. G¨ ordes, R. Hosseinifar, Q. Guillet, J. K. Dewhurst, S. Sharma, C. Sch¨ ußler-Langeheine, N. Pontius, and W. Kuch, Ultra- fast optically induced ferromagnetic state in an elemental antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 107202 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Bobowski, X

    K. Bobowski, X. Zheng, B. Frietsch, D. Lawrenz, W. Bronsch, C. Gahl, B. Andres, C. Str¨ uber, R. Car- ley, M. Teichmann, A. Scherz, S. Molodtsov, C. Cacho, R. T. Chapman, E. Springate, and M. Weinelt, Ultrafast spin transfer and its impact on the electronic structure, Science ...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Mitrano, S

    M. Mitrano, S. Johnston, Y.-J. Kim, and M. P. M. Dean, Exploring quantum materials with resonant inelastic x- ray scattering, Phys. Rev. X 14, 040501 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    de Groot, M

    F. de Groot, M. Haverkort, H. Elnaggar, A. Juhin, K.-J. Zhou, and P. Glatzel, Resonant inelastic x-ray scattering, Nature Reviews Methods Primers 4, 45 (2024). 6

    2024

  13. [21]

    M. L. Baker, M. W. Mara, J. J. Yan, K. O. Hodgson, B. Hedman, and E. I. Solomon, K- and l-edge x-ray absorption spectroscopy (xas) and resonant inelastic x- ray scattering (rixs) determination of differential orbital covalency (doc) of transition metal sites, Coordination Chem...

    2017

  14. [22]

    Glatzel and U

    P. Glatzel and U. Bergmann, High resolution 1s core hole x-ray spectroscopy in 3d transition metal com- plexes—electronic and structural information, Coordina- tion Chemistry Reviews 249, 65 (2005), synchrotron Ra- diation in Inorganic and Bioinorganic Chemistry

    2005

  15. [23]

    Kotani and S

    A. Kotani and S. Shin, Resonant inelastic x-ray scatter- ing spectra for electrons in solids, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 203 (2001)

    2001

  16. [24]

    van der Laan, B

    G. van der Laan, B. T. Thole, G. A. Sawatzky, J. C. Fuggle, and R. Karnatak, Identification of the relative population of spin-orbit split states in the ground state of a solid, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 19, 817 (1986)

    1986

  17. [25]

    St¨ ohr and H

    J. St¨ ohr and H. C. Siegmann, Magnetism, Vol. 152 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006)

    2006

  18. [27]

    W. G. Waddington, P. Rez, I. P. Grant, and C. J. Humphreys, White lines in the L2,3 electron-energy-loss and x-ray absorption spectra of 3d transition metals, Phys. Rev. B 34, 1467 (1986)

    1986

  19. [28]

    Holldack, J

    K. Holldack, J. Bahrdt, A. Balzer, U. Bovensiepen, M. Brzhezinskaya, A. Erko, A. Eschenlohr, R. Follath, A. Firsov, W. Frentrup, L. Le Guyader, T. Kachel, P. Kuske, R. Mitzner, R. M¨ uller, N. Pontius, T. Quast, I. Radu, J.-S. Schmidt, C. Sch¨ ußler-Langeheine, M. Sper- ling, ...

    2014

  20. [29]

    Schick, L

    D. Schick, L. Le Guyader, N. Pontius, I. Radu, T. Kachel, R. Mitzner, T. Zeschke, C. Sch¨ ußler- Langeheine, A. F¨ ohlisch, and K. Holldack, Analysis of the halo background in femtosecond slicing experiments, Journal of Synchrotron Radiation 23, 700 (2016)

    2016

  21. [30]

    J. K. Lang, Y. Baer, and P. A. Cox, Study of the 4f and valence band density of states in rare-earth metals. ii. experiment and results, Journal of Physics F: Metal Physics 11, 121 (1981)

    1981

  22. [31]

    de Groot and A

    F. de Groot and A. Kotani, Core Level Spectroscopy of Solids (CRC Press, 2008). APS/123-QED Supplemental Material Non-Equilibrium Multiplet Excitations probed by the M5,4 Branching Ratio in 3d→ 4f X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy Tim Amrhein 1,∗ Beyza Salantur1, Ralph P¨ uttner1,...

    2008 arXiv

  23. [33]

    D. L. Windt, Imd — software for modeling the optical properties of multilayer films, Comput. Phys. 12, 360 (1998)

    1998

  24. [34]

    Thielemann-K¨ uhn, T

    N. Thielemann-K¨ uhn, T. Amrhein, W. Bronsch, S. Jana, N. Pontius, R. Y. Engel, P. S. Miedema, D. Legut, K. Carva, U. Atxitia, B. E. van Kuiken, M. Teichmann, R. E. Car- ley, L. Mercadier, A. Yaroslavtsev, G. Mercurio, L. L. Guyader, N. Agarwal, R. Gort, A. Scherz, S. Dziarzhy...

    2024

  25. [35]

    B. T. Thole and G. van der Laan, Branching ratio in x-ray absorption spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. B 38, 3158 (1988)

    1988

  26. [36]

    B. T. Thole and G. van der Laan, Linear relation between x-ray absorption branching ratio and valence-band spin-orbit expectation value, Phys. Rev. A 38, 1943 (1988)

    1988

  27. [37]

    R. D. Cowan, The Theory of Atomic Structure and Spectra (University of California Press, 1981)

    1981

  28. [38]

    W. T. Carnall, P. R. Fields, and K. Rajnak, Electronic energy levels of the trivalent lanthanide aquo ions. iii. tb 3+, J. Chem. Phys. 49, 4447 (1968)

    1968

  29. [39]

    B. R. Judd, The structures of the ground multiplets of certain rare-earth ions, Proc. Phys. Soc. A 69, 157 (1956). 9

    1956

  30. [90]

    The latter value agrees reasonably well with the calculations presented in Fig

    From this follows B(7F6) = 2 3 ∼= 0.667 and B(7F5) = 56 90 ∼= 0.622 and finallyB(7F5)/B(7F6) = 0.933. The latter value agrees reasonably well with the calculations presented in Fig. 2 of the manuscript, which is B(7F5)/B(7F6) = 0.904. Note that the value of B(7F5)/B(7F6) = 0.9...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.