Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Absence of high-field spin supersolid phase in Rb$_2$Co(SeO$_3$)$_2$ with a triangular lattice

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read NMR spectroscopy rules out the high-field spin supersolid phase in Rb2Co(SeO3)2, showing the UUD spin structure persists into the intermediate phase.

desk verdict Solid high-field NMR study of Rb2Co(SeO3)2; the 'unambiguous' absence of the V-phase overreaches the demonstrated sensitivity to in-plane spin order. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06281 v1 pith:AULUTQYB submitted 2025-09-08 cond-mat.str-el

K. Shi , Y. Q. Han , B. C. Yu , L. S. Ling , W. Tong , C. Y. Xi , T. Shang , Zhaosheng Wang
show 2 more authors
Li Pi Long Ma
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords Rb2Co(SeO3)2triangularlatticespinsupersolidUUDphaseNMRhighmagneticfieldIsingantiferromagnetdiagram
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 settle whether the high-field intermediate phase of the triangular-lattice Ising antiferromagnet Rb2Co(SeO3)2 is a spin supersolid—the 'V-phase' predicted for the spin-1/2 XXZ model on a triangular lattice. Combining magnetization, torque magnetometry, specific heat, and 87Rb nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) up to 30 T, the authors map the phase diagram and identify the up-up-down (UUD) spin configuration of the 1/3-magnetization plateau. The decisive observation is that when the field pushes the system from the UUD plateau into the intermediate phase, the two NMR central peaks shift together but the frequency difference between them does not change; in the polarized state that splitting finally collapses. They conclude that the UUD structure persists throughout the intermediate phase, so there is no high-field spin supersolid—contradicting the theoretical phase diagram and contrasting with the behavior seen in the less Ising-like compound Na2BaCo(PO4)2.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 87Rb NMR central-line splitting. Each Rb site experiences hyperfine fields from the two Co2+ sublattices in the UUD structure: the nearest Co triangle contributes a common internal field while the up and down moments in adjacent layers contribute a staggered field, so the resonance splits into two lines with a 2:1 intensity ratio. The frequency difference between the two central peaks (CU and CD) is the measure of the staggered spin order; keeping it constant across Bc2 while both peaks shift uniformly is the evidence that the spin configuration has not reoriented. Field-dependent spin-lattice relaxation rates (1/T1) independently locate the phase boundaries.

What would settle it

Calculate the 87Rb hyperfine field for the proposed V-phase or π-coplanar spin structure in Rb2Co(SeO3)2 and compare its predicted central-line splitting with the UUD prediction; if the two are equal within experimental linewidth, the unchanged splitting cannot rule out the supersolid. Alternatively, measure transverse spin correlations in the intermediate phase directly—for example, by high-field neutron scattering looking for the gapless Goldstone mode a supersolid would exhibit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the level of the spin structure, the paper's claim is that the intermediate phase between the 1/3 plateau and the polarized state in Rb2Co(SeO3)2 is not a spin supersolid. The 87Rb NMR spectrum in the plateau consists of two central lines with a 2:1 intensity ratio, matching the UUD arrangement in which two of three Co sites point along the field and one against it. Across the transition into the intermediate phase (Bc2), both central lines move to lower frequency—consistent with increasing uniform magnetization—but their frequency separation, which encodes the staggered hyperfine field from the down sublattice, remains constant. Only on approaching full polarization does the down-spin li

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion assumes that if a V-phase supersolid with transverse spin components existed in the intermediate phase, it would change the frequency separation of the two 87Rb NMR central lines; the paper never calculates the expected NMR signature of the supersolid, so an unchanged splitting is read as proof that the spins remain collinear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The high-field intermediate phase in this material is a continuation of the UUD plateau, not a distinct supersolid; theoretical predictions of a V-phase for near-Ising triangular antiferromagnets need revision.
  • The 2:1-split NMR pattern with a constant frequency splitting is a spectroscopic fingerprint for collinear UUD order, usable in other layered cobaltates.
  • The full high-field phase diagram up to 30 T, including the characteristic fields Bc1–Bc4, provides quantitative benchmarks for XXZ model calculations and future neutron work.
  • The exit from the plateau is not via spin canting but through a gradual reorientation and suppression of the down sublattice, reflected in the loss of CD spectral weight near the polarized state.
  • The contrast with Na2BaCo(PO4)2, where the NMR splitting does change across the analogous transition, shows that the Ising anisotropy ratio determines whether the V-phase appears.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable corollary not drawn by the authors: the anomalies at Bc2–Bc3 may be a crossover rather than a true thermodynamic phase transition; hysteresis and scaling measurements across this field range would distinguish a distinct phase from a smooth polarization crossover.
  • The unchanged splitting only excludes a supersolid that couples to the Rb hyperfine field. First-principles hyperfine calculations for the proposed V-phase or π-coplanar spin structure would show whether that assumption is safe, and high-field neutron scattering searching for the gapless Goldstone mode would settle it directly.
  • If the absence of the V-phase is confirmed, the phase diagram of the XXZ triangular model in the Ising limit may be controlled by spinon or quantum-fluctuation physics rather than the semiclassical magnon picture—consistent with the paper's speculation that the system is proximate to a spin liquid.
  • Tuning the anisotropy ratio in the same material family (for instance, chemical substitution between Rb and K, or pressure that increases J⊥/Jzz) could map where the V-phase appears and disappears—an extension not attempted here.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a multi-technique study of the triangular-lattice quantum Ising antiferromagnet Rb2Co(SeO3)2 in magnetic fields up to 30 T. Magnetization, torque magnetometry, specific heat, and 87Rb NMR are combined to map the B–T phase diagram and to identify the 1/3-magnetization plateau as an up-up-down (UUD) spin structure via the 2:1 intensity ratio of the NMR central line splitting. Across the transition from the UUD phase into the high-field intermediate phase (Bc2), the two central NMR peaks shift uniformly to lower frequency while their frequency difference remains unchanged; the authors take this as evidence that the UUD structure persists and that the proposed high-field V-phase spin supersolid is absent. The paper closes with a discussion of the discrepancy with theoretical XXZ-model predictions and speculates about the role of strong quantum fluctuations.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides an important negative constraint on the phase diagram of easy-axis triangular-lattice quantum antiferromagnets, complementing the positive evidence for a V-phase supersolid in Na2BaCo(PO4)2. The experimental scope is broad and the direct identification of the UUD configuration via the 2:1 NMR line splitting is convincing. The main deficiency is that the absence claim rests on an unquantified assumption about the NMR sensitivity to the in-plane spin components that distinguish a V-phase from UUD. This issue is fixable, and with it addressed the paper would be a valuable contribution to the field.

major comments (3)
  1. [Paragraph 'The splitting NMR lines…' and Fig. 4(d)–(f)] The central inference—that the unchanged frequency difference between the CU and CD lines rules out the V-phase—requires that a finite transverse (in-plane) spin component in the V-phase would produce a detectable change in the local hyperfine field at the 87Rb sites. The manuscript states that the internal hyperfine field is c-axis aligned and that 'change of the moment direction or size will further modify the frequency difference', but it does not quantify this. If the hyperfine tensor has negligible A_zx and A_zy components by local symmetry, the splitting would be blind to the superfluid order parameter, and a V-phase with nearly unchanged z-components would give the observed constant splitting. The paper should either compute the expected NMR spectrum/frequency shift for a candidate V-phase (e.g., from a dipolar calculation or from the measured hyperfine tensor anisotropy), or subs
  2. [Fig. 4(d)–(f) and discussion of 'remains unchanged'] The claim that the frequency difference is unchanged across Bc2 is made without error bars on the resonance frequencies extracted from the Gaussian fits. The scatter of the plotted points and the limited number of fields inside the intermediate phase make it difficult to assess the sensitivity. A quantitative upper bound on the change in the splitting (e.g., Δ(fCU−fCD) < x kHz) is needed to support the absence claim. In addition, the spectra are only followed up to 20.3 T; the behavior at the intermediate-to-polarized transition is inferred from the suppression of the CD peak, but no quantitative intensity analysis is provided. Please add uncertainties and, where possible, a fit-derived bound on the splitting.
  3. [Abstract and concluding paragraph] The wording 'unambiguous spectroscopic evidence' and 'rules out the possibility of spin-reorientation' overstates what is shown. The data are consistent with persistence of the UUD z-spin pattern, but they do not by themselves exclude a V-phase whose transverse component is weakly coupled to the Rb nuclei. The conclusion should be framed as 'no detectable signature of the V-phase within the NMR sensitivity' unless the hyperfine sensitivity calculation requested above is added. This is a substantive framing issue rather than a mere typo, because it directly affects the paper's central claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Grammar: 'This observation supplies' should be 'These observations supply' or the verb should be 'supplies' with the singular subject; 'persist' should be 'persists'.
  2. [Introduction/Fig. 1] The '1/3-Ms plateau' is mentioned before Ms is defined; define Ms at first use. The phrase 'counterpart material' is ambiguous; specify K2Co(SeO3)2.
  3. [Fig. 2(b) and phase-boundary discussion] The contour plot and the Bc1–Bc4 markers would benefit from explicit error bars on the boundary fields, especially for the weak 'hump' transition at Bc3. The wording 'the low-temperature phase is divided into five phases, including the paramagnetic' is confusing because paramagnetic is not a low-temperature ordered phase; rephrase.
  4. [Reference list] Reference [14] is an arXiv preprint; if a published version exists, update it. Reference [22] is also an arXiv preprint; please check for journal publication.
  5. [Fig. 3(b)–(e)] The statement 'no noticeable difference is observed between the spectrum for the intermediate phase and UUD phase' should be supported by a quantitative measure (linewidth, splitting, intensity ratio) rather than visual inspection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the absence-of-supersolid claim is a direct NMR inference, not a reduction to the paper's inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—absence of a high-field V-phase spin supersolid—is derived from direct measurements: 87Rb NMR spectra, magnetization, torque, and specific heat. The key evidence is that the frequency difference between the CU and CD central NMR peaks and their 2:1 intensity ratio remain constant across the UUD-to-intermediate transition (Fig. 4d–f), while both peaks shift uniformly. This is an inductive inference from observed spectroscopic quantities, not a tautology. The UUD configuration of the plateau is identified independently from the 2:1 intensity ratio and staggered hyperfine splitting, and its persistence into the intermediate phase is inferred from the constancy of that splitting. No equation in the paper defines the predicted quantity (absence of V-phase) in terms of the input data; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Theoretical results (Yamamoto et al. and related work) are cited only to motivate the V-phase candidate and are contradicted, not assumed, by the experimental conclusion. Self-citations are limited to prior studies of sister compounds used for comparison and parameter context; they are not load-bearing for the absence claim. The main physical vulnerability—whether a V-phase would necessarily change the Rb hyperfine splitting—is a question of experimental sensitivity and hyperfine coupling, not circular reasoning. The paper does not compute the expected V-phase NMR shift, but that is a correctness/robustness concern, not a self-referential derivation. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained against external measurements, and no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities and no free parameters that directly determine the central claim. The load-bearing assumptions are material-specific: the hyperfine coupling geometry (and its insensitivity to transverse spin components), the identification of phase boundaries, and the applicability of the XXZ model. The most consequential and least tested assumption is the axial hyperfine coupling, which could make the NMR blind to a transverse supersolid order parameter.

free parameters (2)
  • Jzz (Ising exchange) = close to K2Co(SeO3)2, approximately 34 K, inferred from characteristic field positions
    Used only to place the compound in the XXZ phase diagram; not part of the NMR-based central claim.
  • alpha = J_perp/Jzz = approximately 0.07, inferred from characteristic field positions
    Used to compare with the theoretical phase diagram of Yamamoto et al.; not fitted to the absence claim.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The internal hyperfine field at 87Rb is aligned with the crystalline c-axis due to local symmetry.
    Used to interpret the NMR splitting in the UUD phase and to argue that a change in moment direction would alter the splitting (Section around Fig.4a).
  • domain assumption The hyperfine coupling between 87Rb and Co moments is described by a diagonal tensor with a single c-axis component Acc; transverse spin components produce negligible NMR frequency shift.
    This is inferred from the negative Knight shift and is load-bearing for the conclusion that unchanged splitting rules out a transverse supersolid order parameter. The paper does not quantify the transverse contribution.
  • domain assumption The phase boundaries Bc1 to Bc4 are correctly identified from the magnetization hump, torque anomaly, and specific heat peaks.
    The mapping of the phase diagram and the identification of the intermediate phase rely on the assignment of these characteristic fields from the experimental data.
  • domain assumption The spin-1/2 XXZ model with nearest-neighbor exchange on a triangular lattice describes Rb2Co(SeO3)2.
    The theoretical comparison and the expected V-phase are framed entirely within this model, which is assumed to capture the material's magnetism.
  • domain assumption 87Rb nuclei occupy a single Wyckoff position and have I = 3/2, giving one central and two satellite peaks in the paramagnetic state.
    This is used to interpret the NMR spectra and the 2:1 intensity ratio as due to the UUD magnetic structure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Absence of high-field spin supersolid phase in Rb$_2$Co(SeO$_3$)$_2$ with a triangular lattice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AULUTQYB

@misc{pith2026250906281,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Absence of high-field spin supersolid phase in Rb$_2$Co(SeO$_3$)$_2$ with a triangular lattice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AULUTQYB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06281}
}
abstract

Magnetization, torque magnetometry, specific heat and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) are used to study the high field intermediate phase between the 1/3-magnetization plateau and polarized state in the quantum Ising antiferromagnet Rb$_2$Co(SeO$_3$)$_2$ with a triangular lattice. The magnetic phase diagram with the magnetic field up to 30 T is mapped by the comprehensive experimental data. The "up-up-down" (UUD) spin configuration of the 1/3-magnetization plateau state is identified by NMR spectral analysis. At higher magnetic fields, this UUD structure persist to the intermediate phase, which is finally destroyed in the polarized state. This observation supplies unambiguous spectroscopic evidence for the absence of proposed high field spin supersolid phase. The high-field phase diagram of this quantum magnet proximate to the Ising-anisotropy limit contradicts with that proposed by theoretical studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06281 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (color online) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (color online) (a) Field dependence of the specific he [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (color online) Full [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (color online) (a) A sketch of the studied [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Emergent Spin Supersolids in Frustrated Quantum Materials

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    Spin supersolids featuring coexisting longitudinal spin order breaking lattice symmetry and transverse order breaking spin U(1) symmetry have been established in frustrated quantum magnets through consistent experimen...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Anderson, Resonating valence bonds: a new kind of insulator?, Mater

    P. Anderson, Resonating valence bonds: a new kind of insulator?, Mater. Res. Bull. 8, 153 (1973)

    work page 1973

  2. [2]

    Moessner and A

    R. Moessner and A. P. Ramirez, Geometrical frustration, Phys. Today 59, 24 (2006)

    2006

  3. [3]

    M. M. Bordelon, E. Kenney, C. Liu, T. Hogan, L. Posthuma, M. Kavand, Y. Lyu, M. Sherwin, N. P. Butch, C. Brown, M. J. Graf, L. Balents, and S. D. Wilson, Field-tunable quantum disordered ground state in the triangular-lattice antiferromagnet NaYbO 2, Nat. Phys. 15, 1058 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Yunoki and S

    S. Yunoki and S. Sorella, Two spin liquid phases in the spatially anisotropic triangular Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B 74, 014408 (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Y. D. Li, X. Q. Wang, and G. Chen, Anisotropic spin model of strong spin-orbit-coupled triangular antiferro- magnets, Phys. Rev. B 94, 035107 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Z. Y. Zhu, P. A. Maksimov, S. R. White, and A. L. Chernyshev, Topography of spin liquids on a triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 207203 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Yamamoto, G

    D. Yamamoto, G. Marmorini, and I. Danshita, Quantum phase diagram of the triangular-lattice XXZ model in a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 127203 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    R. D. Zhong, S. Guo, G. Y. Xu, Z. J. Xu, and R. J. Cava, Strong quantum fluctuations in a quantum spin liquid candidate with a Co-based triangular lattice, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 14505 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    N. Li, Q. Huang, X. Y. Yue, W. J. Chu, Q. Chen, E. S. Choi, X. Zhao, H. D. Zhou, and X. F. Sun, Possible itin- erant excitations and quantum spin state transitions in the effective spin-1/2 triangular-lattice antiferromagne t Na2BaCo(PO4)2, Nat. Comm. 11, 4216 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    J. S. Xiang, C. D. Zhang, Y. Gao, W. Schmidt, K. Schmalzl, C. W. Wang, B. Li, N. Xi, X. Y. Liu, H. Jin, G. Li, J. Shen, Z. Y. Chen, Y. Qi, Y. Wan, W. T. Jin, W. Li, P. J. Sun, and G. Su, Giant magnetocaloric ef- fect in spin supersolid candidate Na 2BaCo(PO4)2, Na- ture 625, 2...

    2024

  3. [11]

    J. M. Sheng and et al., Two-dimensional quantum univer- sality in the spin-1/2 triangular-lattice quantum antifer - romagnet Na 2BaCo(PO4)2, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119, e2211193119 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    R. D. Zhong, S. Guo, and R. J. Cava, Frustrated magnetism in the layered triangular lattice materials K2Co(SeO3)2 and Rb 2Co(SeO3)2, Phys. Rev. Mater. 4, 6 084406 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    M. Zhu, V. Romerio, N. Steiger, S. D. Nabi, N. Mu- rai, S. Ohira-Kawamura, K. Y. Povarov, Y. Skourski, R. Sibille, L. Keller, Z. Yan, S. Gvasaliya, and A. Zhe- ludev, Continuum excitations in a spin supersolid on a triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 186704 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Chen and et al., Phase diagram and spectroscopic signatures of supersolids in quantum ising magnet K2Co(SeO3)2, arxiv: 2402, 15869 (2024)

    T. Chen and et al., Phase diagram and spectroscopic signatures of supersolids in quantum ising magnet K2Co(SeO3)2, arxiv: 2402, 15869 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Y. Gao, Y. C. Fan, H. Li, F. Yang, X. T. Zeng, X. L. Sheng, R. D. Zhong, Y. Qi, Y. Wan, and W. Li, Spin supersolidity in nearly ideal easy-axis triangular quantu m antiferromagnet Na 2BaCo(PO4)2, npj Quantum Mater. 7, 89 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Y. X. Wang, T. Plackowski, and A. Junod, Specific heat in the superconducting and normal state (2-300 K, 0-16 T), and magnetic susceptibility of the 38 K superconduc- tor MgB 2: evidence for a multicomponent gap, Physica C 355, 179 (2001)

    2001

  9. [17]

    O. J. Taylor, A. Carrington, and J. A. Schlueter, Specific-heat measurements of the gap structure of the organic superconductors κ-(ET)2Cu[N(CN)2]Br and κ- (ET)2Cu(NCS)2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 057001 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    Susuki, N

    T. Susuki, N. Kurita, T. Tanaka, H. Nojiri, A. Mat- suo, K. Kindo, and H. Tanaka, Magnetization process and collective excitations in the S = 1 /2 triangular- lattice Heisenberg antiferromagnet Ba 3CoSb2O9, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 267201 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    J. Xing, L. D. Sanjeewa, J. Kim, G. R. Stewart, A. Podlesnyak, and A. S. Sefat, Field-induced magnetic transition and spin fluctuations in the quantum spin- liquid candidate CsYbSe 2, Phys. Rev. B 100, 220407(R) (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    T. Ono, H. Tanaka, H. A. Katori, F. Ishikawa, H. Mi- tamura, and T. Goto, Magnetization plateau in the frus- trated quantum spin system Cs 2CuBr4, Phys. Rev. B 67, 104431 (2003)

    2003

  13. [21]

    Y. A. Sakhratov, M. Prinz-Zwick, D. Wilson, N. B ttgen, A. Y. Shapiro, L. E. Svistov, and A. P. Reyes, Magnetic structure of the triangular antiferromagnet RbFe(MoO4)2 weakly doped with nonmagnetic K + ions studied by NMR, Phys. Rev. B 99, 024419 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    X. Y. Xu, Z. L. Wu, Y. Chen, Q. Huang, Z. Hu, X. Y. Shi, K. F. Du, S. Li, R. Bian, R. Yu, Y. Cui, H. D. Zhou, and W. Q. Yu, Nmr study of supersolid phases in the triangular-lattice antiferromagnet Na 2BaCo(PO4)2, arxiv: 2504, 08570 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Y. Xu, J. Hasik, B. Ponsioen, and A. H. Nevidomskyy, Simulating spin dynamics of supersolid states in a quan- tum ising magnet, Phys. Rev. B 111, L060402 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    J. M. Sheng, L. Wang, W. R. Jiang, H. Ge, N. Zhao, T. T. Li, M. Kofu, D. H. Yu, W. Zhu, J. W. Mei, Z. T. Wang, and L. S. Wu, Continuum of spin excitations in an ordered magnet, The Innovation 6, 100769 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    H. C. Jia, B. W. Ma, Z. D. Wang, and G. Chen, Quan- tum spin supersolid as a precursory dirac spin liquid in a triangular lattice antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Research 6, 033031 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.