Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 29 references

Antiferromagnetic domain walls in Sr2IrO4 migrate at 3 million m/s under laser excitation — faster than the speed of sound — implying a purely electronic spin mechanism with no lattice coupling.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 23:01 UTC pith:7SDIL5P3

load-bearing objection The experiment is genuinely new, but the headline velocity is a fitted parameter of an unvalidated model with no model-independent check — the paper overreaches. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.07359 v2 pith:7SDIL5P3 submitted 2025-11-10 cond-mat.str-el

Spatio-temporal migration of antiferromagnetic domain walls in Sr2IrO4

Ian Robinson , David Yang , Ross Harder , Dina Sheyfer , Longlong Wu , Jack Griffiths , Emil Bozin , Mark P. M. Dean
show 13 more authors
Jialun Liu Hengdi Zhao Gang Cao Angel Rodriguez-Fernandez Jan-Etienne Pudell Roman Shayduk James Wrigley Alexey Zozulya Rustam Rysov Aliaksandr Leonau Ulrike Boesenberg Joerg Hallmann Anders Madsen
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords antiferromagnetic domain wallsSr2IrO4spin-orbit Mott insulatorcoherent magnetic X-ray diffraction imagingultrafast demagnetizationdomain-wall velocitylaser pump-probetime-resolved imaging
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Using time-resolved coherent magnetic X-ray diffraction imaging at a free-electron laser, this paper claims to have measured the velocity of antiferromagnetic domain walls in the Mott insulator Sr2IrO4 at 100 K. During laser-induced demagnetization, the domain walls migrate at 3×10^6 m/s, substantially faster than acoustic (sound) velocities and closer to a typical Fermi velocity. The authors interpret this as evidence that the domain-wall motion is carried by a purely electronic spin response with no significant role for coupling to the crystal lattice. If correct, this establishes that antiferromagnetic domain dynamics can proceed at electronic timescales, which is directly relevant for magnetic memory and spintronics applications that rely on rapid domain switching.

Core claim

The central claim is that the antiferromagnetic 'phase domains' in Sr2IrO4 — regions of the canted-moment structure shifted by c/4 relative to one another — contract rapidly when the material is photoexcited by a 50 fs optical pulse. Fitting the pump-probe coherent diffraction patterns with a 12-parameter Voronoi model of four domains, the authors find that the envelope containing the domains shrinks by 0.127 µm with a time constant of 40±30 fs. Dividing the displacement by the time constant gives a domain-wall migration velocity of 3×10^6 m/s. Because this velocity is far above the speed of sound and near the Fermi velocity, the authors conclude that the domain-wall motion arises from a pur

What carries the argument

The key object is the antiferromagnetic phase domain — a spatial region where the canted Ir moments are displaced by c/4 (half the magnetic unit cell) relative to the parent lattice, separated from neighboring domains by 'zero-angle' domain walls that are invisible in ordinary Bragg diffraction but are detected through their coherent interference in the magnetic scattering. The central mechanism for extracting the velocity is a 12-parameter Voronoi model: four domains with adjustable phases, seed positions, and an elliptical envelope, fitted to the measured speckle pattern at each pump-probe delay. The model's envelope length h(Dt) is the only parameter that changes significantly with delay,

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the assumption that the measured contraction of the model's domain envelope is a real spatial motion of the domain walls, rather than a drop in magnetic scattering contrast or coherence that the model misinterprets as shrinkage.

What would settle it

A direct real-space measurement of an individual antiferromagnetic domain wall in Sr2IrO4 using time-resolved Lorentz microscopy under the same 50 fs, 1.4 mJ/cm² optical pumping would independently track the wall's displacement; if the real-space velocity is found to be below ~10^5 m/s, the Fermi-velocity claim from the model-based fit is refuted.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Antiferromagnetic domain walls can move at electronic (Fermi-like) speeds in response to a femtosecond optical pulse, at least in spin-orbit-coupled Mott insulators.
  • The laser-induced demagnetization in Sr2IrO4 involves a spatial contraction of the magnetic domain structure, not just a uniform reduction of magnetic order.
  • The domain pattern is restored at the same positions after relaxation, implying that the pinning landscape (defects, twin boundaries) survives the ultrafast excitation and governs the final configuration.
  • Coherent magnetic X-ray diffraction imaging can resolve domain-wall displacements of order 100 nm on a 100 fs timescale, providing a new tool for studying hidden antiferromagnetic order dynamics.
  • The recovery time of the long-range magnetic order (~20 ps) is consistent with earlier reports, suggesting that the ultrafast electronic spin flip is followed by a slower lattice-assisted reordering.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the Fermi-velocity claim holds, the moving walls should be accompanied by a spin current and possibly spin accumulation at the boundaries; time-resolved magneto-optical microscopy could look for this signature.
  • The velocity is extracted from a simplified four-domain model; higher-signal 3D coherent imaging could test whether internal walls move in lockstep with the envelope or with a delay.
  • Comparing with antiferromagnets that have weaker spin-orbit coupling could reveal a crossover from electronic to phonon-limited wall speeds, mapping the role of spin-lattice coupling.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports time-resolved coherent magnetic X-ray diffraction measurements on Sr2IrO4 at 100 K following 50-fs optical laser excitation. A 23% drop in the integrated magnetic (106) peak intensity is observed. Since direct HIO and guided-HIO phase retrieval did not produce reproducible reconstructions, the authors instead fit the speckle patterns with a manually initialized 12-parameter Voronoi model of four antiferromagnetic phase domains. The only parameter found to vary significantly with pump-probe delay is the major half-axis h of the elliptical envelope, which contracts by 0.127 µm with a fitted time constant t1 = 40±30 fs, giving a domain-wall migration velocity of 3×10^6 m/s. The paper interprets this as evidence for a purely electronic spin contribution to the magnetic structure, with no role for lattice coupling. The claim is striking, but the evidence as presented is not sufficient to support it.

Significance. If robust, this would be a significant result: it would be the first direct measurement of antiferromagnetic domain-wall velocity in Sr2IrO4 and would imply an electronic rather than acoustic mechanism for the initial demagnetization. The experiment is novel and the data deposit at the European XFEL is a positive feature. However, the central quantitative claim rests entirely on a parametric model that is not validated against model-independent reconstructions and whose parameter uncertainties are not reported. The reported time constant is shorter than the 200-fs binning and comparable to the pump duration. These issues make the main conclusion currently unsupported. The paper is honest about the reconstruction difficulties, but the analysis as presented does not meet the bar for the claimed result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Model fitting and Table 1] The central velocity is not directly measured. The paper states that HIO and guided-HIO reconstructions were not reproducible and 'impossible to track the small changes,' so a 12-parameter Voronoi model was introduced and manually adjusted. The headline numbers Δh=0.127 µm and t1=40±30 fs are fitted parameters of this model, and the velocity is their quotient. Table 1 shows that other parameters also change between the negative- and positive-delay fits (e.g., the minor axis goes from 0.281 to 0.307 µm, and several Voronoi seed coordinates shift). The claim that only h varies significantly is not supported because no error bars, covariance matrix, or uniqueness analysis is provided. Without such analysis, the fit may be degenerate and the apparent contraction could be an artifact of model flexibility.
  2. [Alternative contrast-change interpretation] The paper does not exclude the most natural alternative: the 23% drop in integrated magnetic peak intensity could be a uniform reduction of magnetic scattering amplitude/contrast rather than a spatial contraction of the domain cluster. A uniform amplitude change multiplies the diffraction pattern by a q-independent factor and does not move speckle positions. The only direct evidence for a spatial change is the qualitative statement that 'the fringe spacing increases slightly' for positive delay, which is not quantified against noise. Since the 12-parameter model includes an envelope size parameter, a fit to data with reduced contrast could trade contrast loss against envelope contraction. A model-independent check, such as tracking the position of a specific fringe minimum/maximum as a function of delay, would directly falsify or confirm the spatial interpretation and should be reported.
  3. [Fig. 4 and temporal resolution] The fitted time constant t1=40±30 fs is shorter than the 200-fs binning used for the delay curves and comparable to the 50-fs pump pulse. The two bounding fits shown in Fig. 4 (t1=10 fs and t1=70 fs) give velocities that differ by a factor of seven. With the stated uncertainty, the data cannot resolve whether the contraction is instantaneous on the timescale of the experiment or has a finite 40-fs time constant. Since the velocity depends linearly on 1/t1, the quoted 3×10^6 m/s is not a meaningful value unless the temporal response is actually resolved. At minimum, the authors should report the velocity as a range or upper bound, not a single number.
  4. [Interpretation and domain walls] Even if the envelope contraction is real, the paper's title and abstract claim migration of antiferromagnetic domain walls. The model parameter that changes is the length of the elliptical envelope containing the domains; the internal Voronoi boundaries and phases do not vary significantly according to Table 1. The statement that 'the internal domain walls [move] by a fraction of that distance' is not backed by any fitted parameter or quantitative analysis. The conclusion that there is 'no role for coupling to the crystal lattice' is a strong physical claim that requires more than one fitted envelope parameter. The authors should clarify whether the moving object is the outer boundary of a coherent domain cluster or the actual internal domain walls, and should provide a model-independent measure of the spatial rearrangement.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical/OCR-style errors in the text (e.g., 'Spa$o-temporal' in the title, 'leQer' for 'letter', 'Mlted' for 'tilted'), which should be corrected.
  2. [References] Reference 21 appears to be a duplicate of reference 18. Please merge or remove the duplicate. The data availability statement gives a DOI, which is appreciated.
  3. [Fig. 3] The figure labels in the caption are confusing: panels (c) and (d) are described as the model fits, but the caption also labels them as 'the 12-parameter 4-domain model described in the text.' Please clarify the relationship between panels (e,f) and the coordinate transformation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the reported domain-wall velocity is a derived quantity from a model fit rather than an input assumed by the model.

full rationale

The paper's central velocity is obtained by fitting a 12-parameter Voronoi model to the measured magnetic diffraction patterns at negative and positive pump-probe delays, extracting the envelope length h(Δt), fitting its time dependence to a double exponential with t1 = 40 ± 30 fs, and computing Δh/t1 as the velocity. This is a legitimate measurement chain: the model does not contain the velocity as an input, and the fit does not constrain h to change by a predetermined amount. The paper itself flags the limitation that HIO/guided-HIO reconstructions were 'not reproducible' and 'impossible to track the small changes,' but this is a validation and correctness concern about model dependence, not a circular reduction: no equation defines an input in terms of the output, and the cited prior time constants from Dean et al. and Afanasiev et al. are used only for comparison, not to force the present result. The absence of a model-independent check (e.g., direct fringe-spacing analysis) is a legitimate weakness, but it does not make the derivation circular. Therefore no significant circularity is found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

11 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated; the paper's load-bearing input is an unvalidated 12-parameter model, a sub-resolution fitted time constant, and an untested contrast-vs-position degeneracy. These, rather than new particles or forces, are the free parameters and assumptions the central claim rests on.

free parameters (11)
  • Elliptical envelope major half-axis h = 1.017 µm (negative delay), 0.890 µm (positive delay)
    The only fitted parameter that changes significantly; Δh=0.127 µm is the numerator of the velocity.
  • Fast time constant t1 = 40 ± 30 fs
    Fitted double-exponential time constant of h(Dt); denominator of the velocity; 10–70 fs range changes velocity by ~7x.
  • Slow recovery time constant t2 = 20 ps
    Fitted recovery of h(Dt); not central but part of the double-exponential model.
  • Envelope minor half-axis = 0.281 µm → 0.307 µm
    Adjustable model parameter; variation reported but not used in the velocity.
  • Envelope rotation angle = 0.673 rad → 0.689 rad
    Adjustable model parameter; variation reported but not used in the velocity.
  • Voronoi seed 1 = (0.106, -0.910) → (0.132, -0.642)
    Fitted domain-boundary position in ellipse-fraction coordinates.
  • Voronoi seed 2 = (0.034, 0.671) → (0.107, 0.714)
    Fitted domain-boundary position.
  • Voronoi seed 3 = (0.266, -0.026) → (0.25, 0.053)
    Fitted domain-boundary position.
  • Domain phase 1 = -1.874 → -1.90 rad
    Fitted phase offset; not reported to change significantly.
  • Domain phase 2 = 1.412 → 1.327 rad
    Fitted phase offset.
  • Domain phase 3 = 2.819 → 2.858 rad
    Fitted phase offset.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Coherent diffraction changes arise from spatial contraction of the magnetic domain cluster, not from a change in magnetic scattering amplitude or coherence.
    Central interpretation; not independently tested. A uniform drop in magnetic contrast could mimic envelope contraction in the model fit.
  • ad hoc to paper The 12-parameter 4-domain Voronoi model is an adequate and uniquely constraining representation of the domain structure.
    Introduced after HIO phase retrieval failed to give reproducible unique reconstructions; required to extract h(t).
  • ad hoc to paper Only the envelope size, not phases or internal wall positions, changes with laser delay.
    The fit shows only one parameter varying, but this could be a consequence of model insensitivity rather than physics.
  • domain assumption The magnetic structure consists of canted ++-- / -++- phase domains with zero-angle walls at the same Bragg peak.
    Taken from prior literature and the authors' static BCDI work; needed to interpret the speckle pattern as domain interference.
  • domain assumption Pump-probe timing and X-ray pulse duration allow resolving a 40 fs time constant.
    The laser pulse is 50 fs and data are binned at 200 fs; 40±30 fs is at or below the temporal resolution, so the fast component may not be physically resolved.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 8385 in / 13983 out tokens · 131324 ms · 2026-08-03T23:01:36.092713+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

By laser pump-probe time-resolved coherent magnetic X-ray diffraction imaging, we have measured the migration velocity of antiferromagnetic domain walls in the Mott insulator Sr2IrO4 at 100 K. During the laser-induced demagnetization, we observe domain walls moving at 3x10^6 m/s, significantly faster than acoustic velocities. This is understood to arise from a purely electronic spin contribution to the magnetic structure without any role for coupling to the crystal lattice.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.07359 by Alexey Zozulya, Aliaksandr Leonau, Anders Madsen, Angel Rodriguez-Fernandez, David Yang, Dina Sheyfer, Emil Bozin, Gang Cao, Hengdi Zhao, Ian Robinson, Jack Griffiths, James Wrigley, Jan-Etienne Pudell, Jialun Liu, Joerg Hallmann, Longlong Wu, Mark P. M. Dean, Roman Shayduk, Ross Harder, Rustam Rysov, Ulrike Boesenberg.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Amplitude (square root of the measured intensity) of the coherent diffracMon paQern [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Phase reconstrucMon of the observed diffracMon paQern at negaMve Mme delay, - 5<Dt<0 ps, in a fixed support using (a) 500 cycles of alternaMng HIO_ER (b) guided HIO with 5 generaMons of 15 populaMons (c) the 12-parameter 4-domain model described in the text. (a) and (b) are typical examples of a wide range of non-reproducible structures, shown in the “detector” coordinate frame, the Fourier transform o… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time dependence of the domain envelope length parameter of the model used to fit the diffracMon paQern. The trend has been fit to a double exponenMal funcMon with Mme constant t1 for the excitaMon and t2 for its relaxaMon. Two fit curves with t1 = 10 fs and 70 fs indicate the range of possible fits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L. D. Landau, A possible explanaMon of the field dependence of the suscepMbility at low temperatures, Phys. Z. Sowjet, 4, 675 (1933)

    1933

  2. [2]

    M. L. Néel, Propriétées magnéMques des ferrites; FérrimagnéMsme et anMferromagnéMsme, Annales de Physique 12 137 (1948)

    1948

  3. [3]

    Blume and D

    M. Blume and D. Gibbs, PolarizaMon dependence of magneMc x-ray scaQering, Phys. Rev. B 37 1779 (1988)

    1988

  4. [4]

    Staub, G

    U. Staub, G. I. Meijer, F. Fauth, R. Allenspach, J. G. Bednorz, J. Karpinski, S. M. Kazakov, L. Paolasini and F. d'Acapito, Direct ObservaMon of Charge Order in an Epitaxial NdNiO3 Film, Phys. Rev. LeQ. 88 126402 (2002)

    2002

  5. [5]

    P. B . A l l e n , Theory of thermal relaxaMon of electrons in metals, Phys. Rev. LeQ. 59 1460 (1987)

    1987

  6. [6]

    J. K. Chen, D. Y . Tzou, J. E. Beraun, A semiclassical two-temperature model for ultrafast laser heaMng, Int. J. Heat Transfer 49 307 (2006)

    2006

  7. [7]

    H. S. Park, J. S. Baskin, and A. H. Zewail, 4D Lorentz Electron Microscopy Imaging: MagneMc Domain Wall NucleaMon, Reversal, and Wave Velocity, Nano LeQ. 10 3796 (2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    C. Liu, F. Ai, S. Reisbick, A. Zong, A. Pofelski, M-G. Han, F. Camino, C. Jing, V. Lomakin and Y . Zhu, Correlated spin-wave generaMon and domain-wall oscillaMon in a topologically textured magneMc film, Nature Materials 24 406 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    Weller, G

    D. Weller, G. Parker, O. Mosendz, A. Lyberatos, D. MiMn, N. Y . Safonova and M. Albrecht, FePt heat assisted magneMc recording media, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 34 060801 (2016)

    2016

  10. [10]

    M. O. A. Ellis and R. W. Chantrell, Switching Mmes of nanoscale FePt: Finite size effects on the linear reversal mechanism, Appl. Phys. LeQ. 106 162407 (2015)

    2015

  11. [11]

    M. P . M. Dean, Y . Cao, X. Liu, S. Wall, D. Zhu, R. Mankowsky, V. Thampy, X. M. Chen, J. G. Vale, D. Casa, J. Kim, A. H. Said, P . Juhas, R. Alonso-Mori, J. M. Glownia, A. Robert, J. Robinson, M. Sikorski, S. Song, M. Kozina, H. Lemke, L. PaQhey, S. Owada, T. Katayama, M. Yabashi, Yoshikazu Tanaka, T. Togashi, J. Liu, C. Rayan Serrao, B. J. Kim, L. Huber...

    2016

  12. [12]

    Afanasiev, A

    D. Afanasiev, A. GaMlova, D. J. Groenendijk, B. A. Ivanov, M. Gibert, S. Gariglio, J. MenMnk, J. Li, N. Dasari, M. Eckstein, T. Rasing, A. D. Caviglia and A. V. Kimel, Ultrafast Spin Dynamics in Photodoped Spin-Orbit MoQ Insulator Sr2IrO4, Phys Rev X 9 021020 (2019)

    2019

  13. [13]

    Madsen, J

    A. Madsen, J. Hallmann, G. Ansaldi, T. Roth, W. Lu, C. Kim, U. Boesenberg, A. Zozulya, J. Moeller, R. Shayduk, M. Scholz, A. Bartmann, A. Schmidt, I. Lobato, K. Sukharnikov, M. Reiser, K. Kazarian and I. Petrov, Materials Imaging and Dynamics (MID) instrument at the European X-ray Free-Electron Laser Facility, J. Synchrotron Rad. 28 637 (2021)

    2021

  14. [14]

    F. Ye, S. Chi, B. C. Chakoumakos, J. A. Fernandez-Baca, T. Qi and G. Cao, MagneMc and crystal structure of Sr₂IrO₄: a neutron difffracMon study, Phys. Rev. B 87, 140406 (2013)

    2013

  15. [15]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi, VESTA 3 for three-dimensional visualizaMon of crystal, volumetric and morphology data, J. Appl. Cryst. 44 1272 (2011)

    2011

  16. [16]

    B. J. Kim, H. Jin, S. J. Moon, J-Y. K i m , B-G. Park, C. S. Leem, J. Yu, T. W. Noh, C. Kim, S-J. Oh, J-H. Park, V. Durairaj, G. Cao and E. Rotenberg, Novel Jeff=1/2 MoQ State Induced by RelaMvisMc Spin-Orbit Coupling in Sr2IrO4, Phys. Rev. LeQ. 101 076402 (2008)

    2008

  17. [17]

    Boseggia, H

    S. Boseggia, H. C. Walker, J. Vale, R. Springell, Z. Feng, R. S. Perry, M. Morei Sala, H. M. Rønnow, S. P. Collins and D. F. McMorrow, Locking of iridium magneMc moments to the correlated rotaMon of oxygen octahedra in Sr2IrO4 revealed by x-ray resonant scaQering, J. Phys. Condens. MaQer 25 422202 (2013)

    2013

  18. [18]

    T. Choi, Z. Zhang, H. Kim, S. Park, J-W. Kim, K. J. Lee, Z. Islam, U. Welp, S. H. Chang and B. J. Kim, Nanoscale AnMferromagneMc Domain Imaging using Full-Field Resonant X-ray MagneMc DiffracMon Microscopy, Adv. Mater. 34 2200639 (2022)

    2022

  19. [19]

    B. J. Kim, H. Ohsumi, T. Komesu, S. Sakai, T. Morita, H. Takagi and T. Arima, Phase-SensiMve ObservaMon of a Spin-Orbital MoQ State in Sr2IrO4, Science 323 1329 (2009)

    2009

  20. [20]

    L. Wu, W. Wang, T. A. Assefa, A. F. Suzana, J. Diao, G. Cao, R. J. Harder, W. Cha, K. Kisslinger, M. P . M. Dean and I. K. Robinson, Anisotropy of AnMferromagneMc Domains in a Spin-orbit MoQ Insulator, Physical Review B 108 L020403 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    T. Choi, Z. Zhang, H. Kim, S. Park, J-W. Kim, K. J. Lee, Z. Islam, U. Welp, S. H. Chang and B. J. Kim, Nanoscale anMferromagneMc domain imaging using full-field resonant x-ray magneMc diffracMon microscopy, Adv. Mater., 34, 2200639 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    J-W. Kim, S. H. Chun, Y . Choi , B. J. Kim, M. H. Upton and P . J. Ryan, Controlling symmetry of spin-orbit entangled pseudospin state through uniaxial strain, Phys. Rev. B 102 054420 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    J. R. Fienup, ReconstrucMon of an object from the modulus of its Fourier transform, Opt. LeQ. 3 27 (1978)

    1978

  24. [24]

    Robinson and R

    I. Robinson and R. Harder, Coherent X-ray diffracMon imaging of strain at the nanoscale, Nat. Mater. 8, 291 (2009)

    2009

  25. [25]

    C. C. Chen, J. Miao, C. W. Wang, and T. K. Lee, ApplicaMon of opMmizaMon technique to noncrystalline x-ray diffracMon microscopy: Guided hybrid input-output method, Phys. Rev. B 76, 064113 (2007)

    2007

  26. [26]

    R. H. T. Bates, Global soluMon to the scalar inverse scaQering problem, J. Physics A: MathemaMcs & General, L80-L82 (1975)

    1975

  27. [27]

    Voronoi, Nouvelles applicaMons des paramètres conMnus à la théorie des formes quadraMques

    G. Voronoi, Nouvelles applicaMons des paramètres conMnus à la théorie des formes quadraMques. Journal für die Reine und Angewandte MathemaMk 133 97 (1908)

    1908

  28. [28]

    M. J. D. Powell, An efficient method for finding the minimum of a funcMon of several variables without calculaMng derivaMves, The Computer Journal 7 155 (1964)

    1964

  29. [29]

    Sr2+ ions are blue, O2- ions are red and the Ir4+ ions are at centers of the canted octahedra

    Data recorded at the experiment at the European XFEL are available at doi: 10.22003/XFEL.EU-DATA-006156-00 Figure 1: (a) Atomic structure of stronMum iridate, Sr2IrO4. Sr2+ ions are blue, O2- ions are red and the Ir4+ ions are at centers of the canted octahedra. (b,c) MagneMc structure showing two of the four possible phase domains (++-- and -++- respecMv...

    work page doi:10.22003/xfel.eu-data-006156-00