Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Unconventional S-orbital state of Tb and cooperative Ru(4d)-Tb(4f) spin-ordering in strongly correlated 4d-4f system, Ba3TbRu2O9

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Neutron diffraction shows Tb4+ with no orbital moment and Ru4+ with a full S=1 moment, ordering together at 9.5 K.

desk verdict Solid neutron magnetic structure of Ba3TbRu2O9 with cooperative Ru-Tb ordering, but the Tb4+/S=1 interpretation is under-supported and the paper contradicts itself on Ru's spin. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07717 v1 pith:QUQUNTPC submitted 2025-06-09 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-el

E. Kushwaha , G. Roy , A. M. dos Santos , M. Kumar , S. Ghosh , T. Heitmann , T. Basu This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el
keywords Ba3TbRu2O96H-perovskite4d-4fspinorderings-orbitalstateTb4+valencetime-of-flightneutrondiffractionantiferromagneticstructurespin-onlymoment
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 tries to establish that in the 6H-perovskite Ba3TbRu2O9 the rare-earth ion Tb is tetravalent ($\mathrm{Tb}^{4+}$, $4f^7$), so its orbital moment vanishes ($L=0$) and its magnetism is carried entirely by spin ($S=7/2$) — an s-like state normally reserved for Gd$^{3+}$. It also claims that Ru$^{4+}$ in the Ru$_2$O$_9$ dimers adopts a full spin-only $S=1$ moment of about $2\,\mu_{\rm B}$, in contrast to the reduced moments seen in other members of this family. The two sublattices order in a single antiferromagnetic transition near 9.5 K: Tb moments lie in the $bc$-plane and Ru moments along the $b$-axis, with collinear antiferromagnetic arrangement inside every Ru$_2$O$_9$ dimer. If correct, the compound becomes a clear instance of cooperative 4d–4f ordering where the f-electron system contributes no orbital angular momentum, and it sharpens the picture of how ruthenium's spin state changes across the Ba$_3$R Ru$_2$O$_9$ series.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the magnetic irreducible-representation analysis of the $P6_3/mmc$ space group with propagation vector $k=(0,0,0)$, which selects the basis vectors that both Tb and Ru moments can occupy. The refined magnetic structure combines Ru $\Gamma_{11}(\Psi_5)$ with Tb $\Gamma_7(\Psi_2)$ and $\Gamma_{11}(\Psi_5)$, yielding magnetic space group $P6'_3/m'm'c$; this is what fixes the Tb moment to the $bc$-plane and the Ru moment to the $b$-axis. A second essential piece is the spin-only s-state picture: for a $4f^7$ configuration Hund's rules give $L=0$, $J=S=7/2$ for Tb$^{4+}$ and $S=1$ for Ru$^{4+}$, so the ordered moments can be compared directly to these free-ion values. The neutron refinement itself is the mechanism that rules out a Tb-only model, because setting the Ru moment to zero degrades the fit.

What would settle it

Measure the terbium valence directly with X-ray absorption near-edge structure at the Tb L$_3$ edge; if the edge position matches Tb$^{3+}$ standards rather than Tb$^{4+}$, the $L=0$ s-state claim and the $S=7/2$ assignment cannot be sustained, and the refined 6.18 $\mu_{\rm B}$ Tb moment would need reinterpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By combining magnetization, XPS, and time-of-flight neutron diffraction with irreducible-representation analysis of the $P6_3/mmc$ space group, the paper determines the magnetic structure of Ba$_3$TbRu$_2$O$_9$. The refined propagation vector is $k=(0,0,0)$ and the magnetic space group is $P6'_3/m'm'c$. Tb occupies $2a$ sites and orders in the $bc$-plane with a total moment of $6.18 \pm 0.04\,\mu_{\rm B}$, close to the spin-only value of $7/2$; the moment components along $b$ and $c$ are $\pm 1.69\,\mu_{\rm B}$ and $\pm 5.95\,\mu_{\rm B}$. Ru, on $4f$ sites, orders with moments of $1.96\,\mu_{\rm B}$ along the $b$-axis, essentially the full spin-only $S=1$ value. All Ru spins within each Ru$_2$O$_9$ dimer are collinear and antiferromagnetically arranged, unlike the canted or ferromagnetic dimer structures found for the Ho and Nd members. The authors attribute the simultaneous ordering of both sublattices below $T_{\rm N} \approx 9.5$ K to strong Ru(4d)–Tb(4f) superexchange through the nearly linear Ru–O–Tb paths (angle 179.18°), and they interpret the Tb moment as arising from a Tb$^{4+}$ $4f^7$ configuration with $L=0$, a state they call s-like.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central claim depends on terbium being tetravalent, which is inferred from an effective moment of 8.4 $\mu_{\rm B}$ and XPS lines whose Ru$^{4+}$/Ru$^{5+}$ separation is only about 1 eV; if Tb is actually trivalent, the s-orbital state is not real.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Within the Ba$_3$R Ru$_2$O$_9$ family, Ba$_3$TbRu$_2$O$_9$ becomes the first non-cerium member shown to support tetravalent rare-earth ions while still hosting a cooperative 4d–4f ordering transition.
  • That the refined Ru moment is 1.96 $\mu_{\rm B}$ implies the Ru$_2$O$_9$ dimers preserve a local $S=1$ spin instead of forming a molecular singlet or a heavily reduced moment state.
  • Because both sublattices order at the same $T_{\rm N}$, the Ru(4d)-Tb(4f) exchange through the nearly linear Ru-O-Tb path must be strong enough to lock the two spin systems together.
  • With Tb contributing no orbital moment, the magnetic anisotropy in the ordered state cannot come from single-ion Tb crystal-field anisotropy, so it must arise from the Ru sublattice or from exchange anisotropy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Direct Tb valence testing via X-ray absorption at the Tb L$_3$ edge would resolve the main ambiguity, since the paper's own XPS analysis allows for the possibility that the 1 eV shift reflects crystallographic environment rather than oxidation state.
  • If the Tb$^{4+}$ assignment holds, this compound provides a rare platform where a 4f ion behaves as a pure spin ($L=0$), so any multiferroic or magnetoelectric response would be driven by the Ru(4d) sublattice rather than rare-earth single-ion physics.
  • Polarized single-crystal neutron scattering could test whether the small 15.9° canting of the Tb moments is intrinsic or a powder-averaging artifact.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports magnetic susceptibility, XPS, and time-of-flight neutron powder diffraction measurements on the 6H-perovskite Ba3TbRu2O9. The authors conclude that Tb adopts a tetravalent 4f7 configuration with L=0 and S=7/2 (an 's-like' state), that Ru is tetravalent with a spin-only S=1 ground state, and that both Tb and Ru moments order cooperatively below TN ≈ 9.5 K, with Tb moments in the bc-plane and Ru moments along the b-axis, including a collinear antiferromagnetic arrangement within the Ru2O9 dimers. The neutron refinement yields ordered moments of about 6.18 μB for Tb and 1.96 μB for Ru.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, this compound is exceptional within the Ba3RRu2O9 family: it would exhibit a Tb4+ s-orbital-like state, a nearly full Ru4+ spin-only moment, and simultaneous 4d-4f magnetic ordering, contrasting with other members where reduced Ru moments and higher-temperature Ru order are observed. The neutron diffraction work provides a concrete magnetic structure and a model refinement that appears technically credible, and the paper clearly identifies a previously unresolved question about the Tb and Ru ground states. The main fragility lies not in the neutron refinement itself but in the assignment of Tb4+ valence, which underpins the 's-orbital' claim, and in the susceptibility decomposition used to support the Ru S=1 state.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.1, Eq. (1)] The susceptibility-derived per-Ru effective moment of 1.94 μB is not consistent with the claimed spin-only S=1 paramagnetic moment of g√(S(S+1)) = 2.83 μB. The value 1.94 μB is instead close to the ordered-moment scale gS = 2 μB later refined by neutron diffraction. Using this number as a Curie-Weiss effective moment to support S=1 is internally inconsistent; if the Ru paramagnetic moment is genuinely ~1.94 μB, then strong orbital reduction or a different ground state is implied, which contradicts the 'spin-only' description. This issue must be addressed, either by identifying the discrepancy or by presenting the neutron ordered moment as the only evidence for S=1.
  2. [3.1 and Fig. S4] The assignment of Tb4+ is load-bearing for the entire 's-orbital state' claim, but the evidence provided is not sufficient. The XPS data are not calibrated against Tb3+ and Tb4+ standards, and the Tb 4d binding energies in the reported range do not uniquely discriminate between the two valence states. The susceptibility argument assumes Tb4+ (7.94 μB) to derive the per-Ru moment, so it cannot independently justify the valence. An alternative scenario—Tb3+ with a crystal-field-reduced effective moment combined with mixed-valent Ru4+/Ru5+—could reproduce the observed bulk μeff ≈ 8.4 μB and is not modeled or discussed. A direct probe such as Tb L3-edge XANES or bond-valence-sum analysis is needed to establish Tb4+ before the central claim can be accepted.
  3. [Sec. 1 and Abstract] The manuscript contradicts itself on the Ru ground state: the abstract and conclusion state spin-only S=1, while the final paragraph of the Introduction states 'spin-only moment of Ru (S=2, L=0)'. The neutron-refined ordered moment of 1.96 μB is consistent with gS = 2 μB for S=1, not with S=2 (which would give gS = 4 μB). This is not merely a typo because it directly concerns the paper's central claim; the Introduction must be corrected and the distinction between the paramagnetic effective moment (2.83 μB for S=1) and the ordered moment (2 μB) made explicit throughout.
  4. [3.2, refined Tb moment] The refined Tb moment of 6.18 μB is compared to 'S=7/2' in the text, but the spin-only ordered moment for S=7/2 is gS = 7 μB, not 7.94 μB (the latter is the free-ion effective moment). The observed value is about 12% below 7 μB, which is not 'slightly smaller' as stated. The proposed explanations (g-factor slightly below 2, or incomplete saturation) are plausible, but they weaken the 'unconventional spin-only' characterization without quantitative support. A discussion of how a reduced Tb moment might arise while still supporting an L=0 state, or a check of whether the reduced moment is inherent to the refinement, is required.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.2] In the sentence describing the best fit, 'a combination of Γ11(Ψ5) for Ru' appears to be a typo: Table S2 and the preceding text indicate that the Ru b-axis moment corresponds to Γ11(Ψ9), not Γ11(Ψ5). Please correct this mismatch.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] The sentence 'This is consistent with the theoretical value of 7.94 μB for S=7/2 is' is grammatically incomplete and should be rewritten; it would also help to clarify that 7.94 μB is the free-ion paramagnetic effective moment, distinct from the ordered moment scale.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract mentions 'strong spin-lattice coupling' in Ba3TbRu2O9, but the paper does not present direct evidence for spin-lattice coupling; either cite specific prior work that establishes this for this compound or qualify the statement.
  4. [Throughout] The symbol for the Bohr magneton appears inconsistently as 'μb' and 'μB'; please standardize to μB.
  5. [Sec. 3.2] The text states that the magnetic intensity below TN appears at Q = 1.44, 1.86, 2.19, 2.52, 3.30 and 3.53 Å⁻¹ for reflections (101), (103), (211), (105), (213) and (210), respectively; the last assignment appears to be (210) but the numbering of reflections in the accompanying text and figure could be made clearer to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The susceptibility-derived 'per Ru effective moment' is an algebraic residual of the assumed Tb4+ spin-only moment, so it cannot serve as independent evidence; however the neutron refinement is an independent probe, leaving the central ordered-moment claim non-circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1 (magnetic susceptibility), equation μ_eff^2 = μ_Tb^2 + 2 μ_Ru^2; echoed in Abstract and Conclusion]
    "The Curie–Weiss fitting in the paramagnetic region yields an effective moment (μeff) of 8.4 μB. This low value of µeff is not consistent with Tb3+ (effective quantum number J = 6, µeff ~ 9.72 μB). Suggesting that terbium adopts a Tb4+ valence with a spin configuration of S = 7/2, and L = 0 for a half-filled shell. This is consistent with the theoretical value of 7.94 μB for S = 7/2. The experimentally calculated effective magnetic moment per Ru atom is approximately 1.94 μB, based on the relation: μ_eff^2 = μ_Tb^2 + 2 μ_Ru^2"

    The only measured bulk quantity is μeff = 8.4 μB. The paper fixes μ_Tb at the theoretical Tb4+ spin-only value 7.94 μB, then algebraically defines the 'experimentally calculated' Ru moment as the residual 1.94 μB. This residual is therefore a rearrangement of the Tb4+ assumption, not an independent measurement, and cannot by itself validate the Tb4+ (4f7, L=0) assignment or a spin-only Ru S=1 state. It is also the wrong comparison: a spin-only S=1 paramagnet has μ = g√(S(S+1)) ≈ 2.83 μB, whereas 1.94 μB matches the ordered gS = 2 value later obtained from neutron refinement.

full rationale

The paper contains one genuinely self-referential supporting step: the per-Ru effective moment is obtained by subtracting the assumed Tb4+ spin-only moment from the measured total moment, and this residual is then discussed as if it were an independent experimental result. However, the central ordered-moment conclusion does not reduce to that step. The time-of-flight neutron diffraction data are external to the susceptibility analysis; the magnetic structure is solved by irreducible-representation analysis and Rietveld refinement, with Rmag = 5.14, and the authors explicitly test that setting the Ru moment to zero degrades the fit. The refined Tb moment of 6.18 μB and Ru moment of 1.96 μB therefore provide independent microscopic support for the two-sublattice ordered state, even though the assignment of those moments to Tb4+ (S = 7/2) and Ru4+ (S = 1) is model-dependent. The self-citations in the paper (e.g., prior Ba3HoRu2O9 work) are used as comparative benchmarks and are not load-bearing uniqueness arguments. The XPS reasoning is weak, but weakness is a correctness concern rather than circularity. Accordingly, the paper is not fundamentally circular, but the susceptibility-based Ru moment is forced by the Tb4+ assumption, meriting a moderate-low circularity score.

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

The central claims rest on refined magnetic moments (which are fitted to neutron data) and on the assumption that Tb is tetravalent, inferred from a combination of effective moment and XPS. No new fundamental entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Refined Tb ordered moment = 6.18 μB
    Fitted to TOF neutron diffraction data at 2 K; used to support the S=7/2 spin-only assignment for Tb.
  • Refined Ru ordered moment = 1.96 μB
    Fitted to TOF neutron diffraction data at 2 K; used to support the S=1 spin-only assignment for Ru.
  • Curie-Weiss effective moment of compound = 8.4 μB
    Fitted to magnetic susceptibility in the paramagnetic region; used to infer Tb valence and Ru moment via decomposition.
  • Assumed Tb4+ spin-only moment = 7.94 μB
    Theoretical value for S=7/2 with g=2, used in the relation μ_eff² = μ_Tb² + 2 μ_Ru² to derive the Ru effective moment.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Hund's rules: a 4f7 half-filled shell has L=0, S=7/2
    Used to interpret the effective moment and to assign a Tb4+ spin-only ground state.
  • domain assumption The magnetic structure refinement with the chosen irreducible representations uniquely describes the data
    The authors tried several IRs and selected the best fit; uniqueness is assumed.
  • domain assumption The XPS single peak indicates a single Ru valence state
    They acknowledge the small binding energy difference between +4 and +5 but interpret a single peak as evidence for a single valence state.
  • domain assumption The Curie-Weiss fit is valid in the fitted temperature range
    The fitting range is not specified, and short-range correlations could bias the effective moment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unconventional S-orbital state of Tb and cooperative Ru(4d)-Tb(4f) spin-ordering in strongly correlated 4d-4f system, Ba3TbRu2O9." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QUQUNTPC

@misc{pith2026250607717,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unconventional S-orbital state of Tb and cooperative Ru(4d)-Tb(4f) spin-ordering in strongly correlated 4d-4f system, Ba3TbRu2O9},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QUQUNTPC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07717}
}
read the original abstract

The 6H-perovskite Ba3RRu2O9 (R = rare-earth), composed of Ru2O9 dimers connected through RO6 octahedra, exhibits an intriguing variety of magnetic ground states, ranging from non-magnetic to ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic, depending on the specific R ion. In this study, we investigate the compound Ba3TbRu2O9 using magnetic susceptibility measurements and time-of-flight neutron diffraction experiments. Our combined bulk and microscopic analyses reveal that the Tb4+ (4f7) electronic configuration results in an s-like state with an orbital moment L=0 and spin-only value of S=7/2, and Ru4+ exhibits a spin-only value of S=1 despite the presence of strong spin-lattice coupling in this compound, representing a sharp contrast to other reported members of this family. A cooperative 4d-4f spin ordering is observed below the Neel temperature (around 9.5 K), indicating strong Ru(4d)=Tb(4f) correlations in the system. The Tb-moments order antiferromagnetically in the bc-plane, whereas the Ru-moments are aligned antiferromagnetically along the b-axis. Furthermore, a collinear antiferromagnetic arrangement of spins is observed within the Ru2O9 dimers throughout the structure, unlike other reported members of this series (e.g., Ho and Nd).

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introduction The 6H-perovskite system, A3MM′2O9 (where A = Ca, Sr, Ba; M= Li, Bi, 3d-transition metal, or lanthanide metal ion (Ln); M′= 4d/5d-transition metal ion), exhibits a variety of exotic magnetic ground states arising from strong metal –metal (M -M′) electronic correlations and high magnetic frustration, which leads to various quantum phenomena, s...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The homogenized mixture was pressed into pellets and subjected to a series of calcination steps

    Experimental details The compound Ba 3TbRu2O9 was synthesized by solid - state-reaction using mixtures of high purity (>99.9%) precursors: BaCO3, RuO2, and Tb4O7 by mixing thoroughly using an agate mortar and pestle. The homogenized mixture was pressed into pellets and subjected to a series of calcination steps. The initial firing was carried out at 900 ◦...

    work page

  3. [3]

    1c, confirming the purity of the sample

    Results and discussion 3.1 Structural analysis and Magnetic susceptibility measurement The Rietveld refinement of the X -ray diffraction pattern is shown in Fig. 1c, confirming the purity of the sample. A representation of the crystal structure obtained from the Rietveld refinement and the Tb-O-Ru- O-Tb super-exchange paths are shown in Fig. 1a and b. The...

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Figure.S1 Scanning electron micrographs of Ba3TbRu2O9 powder sample

    Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)/ Energy-Dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX): Figure.S2 (a)Backscattered electron Backscattered electron image, and EDX maps display (b) the mixing of Ba, Tb, Ru and O, (c) O, (d) Ru, (e) Ba and (f) Tb of Ba3TbRu2O9 powder sample. Figure.S1 Scanning electron micrographs of Ba3TbRu2O9 powder sample

    work page

  5. [5]

    Elemental mapping obtained from EDS analysis: (b) oxygen (O K), (c) terbium (Tb L), (d) ruthenium (Ru L), and (e) barium (Ba L)

    Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM): Figure.S3 (a) HAADF-STEM image of polycrystalline Ba3TbRu2O9, showing well -defined grains with sharp boundaries. Elemental mapping obtained from EDS analysis: (b) oxygen (O K), (c) terbium (Tb L), (d) ruthenium (Ru L), and (e) barium (Ba L)

    work page

  6. [6]

    X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS): Figure.S4 X-ray photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) of (a)Tb 4d5/2 and 4d3/2, and (b) Ru 3p3/2 and 3p1/2 for Ba3TbRu2O9

    work page

  7. [7]

    Table S1: Basis vector for the space group P63/mmc for K= (0 0 0)

    Time-of-Flight Neutron Diffraction: Fig.S5 shows the Rietveld refinement fitting of 100 K data, that demonstrates the high quality of the fit. Table S1: Basis vector for the space group P63/mmc for K= (0 0 0). The decomposition of the magnetic representation for the Tb site (0, 0, 0) is 𝚪𝒎𝒂𝒈(𝑻𝒃) = 𝟎𝚪𝟏 𝟏 + 𝟎𝚪𝟐 𝟏 + 𝟏𝚪𝟑 𝟏 + 𝟎𝚪𝟒 𝟏 + 𝟎𝚪𝟓 𝟏 + 𝟎𝚪𝟔 𝟏 + 𝟏𝚪𝟕 𝟏 + 𝟎𝚪...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Ishiguro, K

    Y . Ishiguro, K. Kimura, S. Nakatsuji, S. Tsutsui, A. Q. Baron,T. Kimura and Y . Wakabayashi, Nature Communications, 2013,4, 2022

    work page 2013

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Hwang, E

    J. Hwang, E. Choi, F. Ye, C. Dela Cruz, Y . Xin, H. Zhou and P . Schlottmann, Physical review letters, 2012, 109, 257205

    2012

  2. [10]

    D. Ziat, A. A. Aczel, R. Sinclair, Q. Chen, H. Zhou, T. J. Williams, M. B. Stone, A. Verrier and J. Quilliam, Physical Review B, 2017, 95, 184424

    2017

  3. [11]

    T. Basu, V . Caignaert, S. Ghara, X. Ke, A. Pautrat, S. Krohns, A. Loidl and B. Raveau, Physical Review Materials, 2019, 3, 114401

    2019

  4. [12]

    T. Basu, V . Caignaert, F. Damay, T. Heitmann, B. Raveau and X. Ke, Physical Review B, 2020, 102, 020409

    2020

  5. [13]

    Kushwaha, G

    E. Kushwaha, G. Roy, M. Kumar, A. Dos Santos, S. Ghosh, D. Adroja, V . Caignaert, O. Perez, A. Pautrat and T. Basu, Physical Review B, 2024, 109, 224418

    2024

  6. [14]

    S.-J. Kim, M. D. Smith, J. Darriet and H.-C. Zur Loye, Journal of Solid State Chemistry, 2004, 177, 1493–1500

    2004

  7. [15]

    Miiller, M

    W. Miiller, M. Avdeev, Q. Zhou, A. J. Studer, B. J. Kennedy, G. J. Kearley and C. D. Ling, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, 2011, 84, 220406

    2011

  8. [16]

    Hayashida, H

    S. Hayashida, H. Gretarsson, P. Puphal, M. Isobe, E. Goering, Y . Matsumoto, J. Nuss, H. Takagi, M. Hepting and B. Keimer, Physical Review B, 2025, 111, 104418

    2025

  9. [17]

    Q. Chen, A. Verrier, D. Ziat, A. Clune, R. Rouane, X. Bazier Matte, G. Wang, S. Calder, K. M. Taddei, C. d. Cruz et al., Physical Review Materials, 2020, 4, 064409

    2020

  10. [18]

    T. Basu, A. Pautrat, V . Hardy, A. Loidl and S. Krohns, Applied Physics Letters, 2018, 113,year

    2018

  11. [19]

    M. S. Senn, S. A. Kimber, A. M. Arevalo Lopez, A. H. Hill and J. P. Attfield, Physical Review B— Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, 2013, 87, 134402

    2013

  12. [20]

    Doi and Y

    Y . Doi and Y . Hinatsu, Journal of Materials Chemistry, 2002,12, 1792–1795

    2002

  13. [21]

    Y . Doi, M. Wakeshima, Y . Hinatsu, A. Tobo, K. Ohoyama and Y . Yamaguchi, Journal of Materials Chemistry, 2001, 11, 3135–3140

    2001

  14. [22]

    Q. Chen, S. Fan, K. M. Taddei, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov,J. Cheng, J. L. Musfeldt, H. Zhou and A. A. Aczel, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2019, 141, 9928–9936

    2019

  15. [23]

    Sannigrahi, A

    J. Sannigrahi, A. Paul, A. Banerjee, D. Khalyavin, A. Hillier, K. Yokoyama, A. Bera, M. R. Lees, I. Dasgupta, S. Majumdar et al., Physical Review B, 2021, 103, 144431

    2021

  16. [24]

    T. Basu, F. Wei, Q. Zhang, Y . Fang and X. Ke, Physical Review Materials, 2020, 4, 114401

    2020

  17. [25]

    Maris, V

    G. Maris, V . V olotchaev and T. Palstra, New Journal of Physics, 2004, 6, 153

    2004

  18. [26]

    Rodríguez-Carvajal, Physica B: Condensed Matter, 1993, 192, 55–69

    J. Rodríguez-Carvajal, Physica B: Condensed Matter, 1993, 192, 55–69. [20] A. S. Wills, Physica B: Condensed Matter, 2000, 276, 680-681

    1993

  19. [27]

    Jozwiak, J

    L. Jozwiak, J. Balcerzak and J. Tyczkowski, Catalysts, 2020,10, 278

    2020

  20. [28]

    E. G. Sogut, H. Acidereli, E. Kuyuldar, Y . Karatas, M. Gulcan and F. Sen, Scientific reports, 2019, 9, 15724

    2019

  21. [29]

    23 Z. Cao, C. Wang, Y . Sun, M. Liu, W. Li, J. Zhang and Y . Fu, Chemical Science, 2024, 15, 1384– 1392

    2024

  22. [30]

    X. Mao, Z. Liu, C. Lin, J. Li and P. K. Shen, Inorganic Chemistry Frontiers, 2023, 10, 558–566

    2023

  23. [31]

    Chang, M

    L. Chang, M. Prager, J. Perßon, J. Walter, E. Jansen, Y . Chen and J. Gardner, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 2010,22, 076003

    2010

  24. [32]

    Taira, M

    N. Taira, M. Wakeshima and Y . Hinatsu, Journal of Materials Chemistry, 2002, 12, 1475-1479

    2002

  25. [33]

    Wiebe, J

    C. Wiebe, J. Gardner, S.-J. Kim, G. Luke, A. Wills, B. Gaulin, J. Greedan, I. Swainson, Y . Qiu and C. Jones, Physical review letters, 2004, 93, 076403

    2004

  26. [34]

    Y . Doi, Y . Hinatsu, K.-i. Oikawa, Y . Shimojo and Y . Morii, Journal of Materials Chemistry, 2000, 10, 797–800

    2000

  27. [35]

    Adroja, S

    D. Adroja, S. Sharma, C. Ritter, A. Hillier, D. Le, C. Tomy, R. Singh, R. Smith, M. Koza, A. Sundaresan et al., Physical Review B, 2020, 101, 094413

    2020

  28. [36]

    Y . Doi, Y . Hinatsu, A. Nakamura, Y . Ishii and Y . Morii, Journal of Materials Chemistry, 2003, 13, 1758–1763

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.