Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Altermagnetic and dipolar splitting of magnons in FeF$_2$

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The dominant splitting of magnons in FeF2 comes from long-range dipolar interactions, not altermagnetic exchange; where dipoles vanish, a ~35 μeV chiral splitting remains.

desk verdict Solid INS evidence that dipolar interactions dominate magnon splitting in FeF2; the ~35 μeV altermagnetic estimate is a plausible but weakly constrained inference from unresolved broadening. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.04303 v2 pith:DEJEYLTF submitted 2026-01-07 cond-mat.str-el

J. Sears , V. O. Garlea , D. Lederman , J. M. Tranquada , I. A. Zaliznyak This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el PACS 75.30.Ds75.50.Ee75.25.-j
keywords altermagnetismmagnonchiralitydipolarinteractionFeF2inelasticneutronscatteringspinwavesrutileantiferromagnetsingle-ionanisotropy
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

FeF2, a prototypical rutile antiferromagnet, has been proposed as an altermagnet — a magnet whose symmetry allows spin-split excitations without a net moment. Using very-high-resolution inelastic neutron scattering, this paper shows that the splitting observed in its magnon spectrum is dominated by the long-range magnetic dipole interaction, not by altermagnetic exchange. The splitting is largest at the Brillouin-zone boundary and varies with L, matching a spin-wave model with Heisenberg exchange, easy-axis anisotropy, and dipolar interactions. At half-integer L, where the dipolar splitting vanishes, an extra broadening appears that the authors trace to altermagnetic chiral splitting of about 35 μeV. Polarized neutron measurements show that everywhere the dipolar splitting is present, the chiral modes are mixed into predominantly linearly polarized modes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spin Hamiltonian H = Σ J_n S_i·S_j − D Σ (S_i^z)^2 + H_dip, where J_n are Heisenberg exchanges, D is the easy-axis single-ion anisotropy, and H_dip is the long-range magnetic dipole interaction. The altermagnetic part enters through J7a and J7b, two symmetry-related exchange paths along [1,1,0] with inequivalent bond angles; their sum fixes the dispersion shape, while their difference produces chiral splitting of the magnon modes. The dipole term couples the two sublattices and mixes the two chiral modes into linearly polarized ones; at half-integer L its splitting vanishes, exposing the chiral splitting.

What would settle it

Use a single-domain FeF2 crystal (or one with a known, strong domain imbalance) and examine it with polarized neutrons at half-integer L, e.g., (0.5,0.5,1.5): if the two chiral modes do not appear with unequal intensities in the spin-flip/non-spin-flip channels, or if the extra broadening at half-integer L persists unchanged when the domain population is altered, the altermagnetic-chiral assignment is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that in FeF2 the dominant magnon splitting is dipolar in origin, not altermagnetic. The measured splitting peaks at the Brillouin-zone boundary and varies with L, matching long-range dipole interactions; altermagnetic chiral splitting, by contrast, is largest mid-zone and L-independent. Fitting the dispersion requires the sum J7a+J7b = 22±7 μeV; to account for an extra q-dependent Gaussian broadening at half-integer L, the model introduces an anisotropy J7a−J7b = 5 μeV, yielding a chiral splitting of ~35 μeV. Polarized scattering at integer L separates the two modes into different spin-flip channels, showing they are linearly polarized, which confirms the dipolar mixing

Load-bearing premise

The ~35 μeV altermagnetic chiral splitting rests on attributing the extra Gaussian linewidth at half-integer L to a fitted J7a−J7b = 5 μeV anisotropy plus an ad hoc 28 μeV offset, while the magnetic-domain populations that control the relative intensity of the two chiral modes were never measured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the magnon spectrum of FeF2 is largely explained by a minimal Hamiltonian containing D and J2, with dipolar interactions setting the scale of the splitting; the altermagnetic exchange is a small perturbation (~35 μeV).
  • Magnon chirality in FeF2 should be observable with polarized neutrons, but only at half-integer L values (where dipolar splitting vanishes) and only in samples with a magnetic-domain imbalance; at integer L the modes are linearly polarized.
  • The same dipolar-dominance regime is expected to apply to MnF2, consistent with the small chiral signal previously detected there.
  • Large single-ion anisotropy (D≈0.82 meV) in FeF2 does not suppress chirality; the chiral effect is comparable to MnF2 despite the different d-electron configuration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 28 μeV offset added to match the calculated splitting to the observed Gaussian widths is ad hoc; a cleaner test would measure the half-integer-L broadening as a function of temperature or applied field to rule out phonon and disorder contributions.
  • The polarization separation at integer L (modes appearing in opposite spin-flip channels) could be used as a fast diagnostic: if a material shows this separation, dipolar interactions are likely dominating; if instead the two modes appear in the same channel with opposite chirality, altermagnetism is the cause.
  • The result suggests that in other insulating altermagnets, dipolar interactions may often dominate over the altermagnetic exchange, so reports of chiral splitting from unpolarized neutron linewidths should be re-examined for dipolar contributions.
  • A natural next experiment: apply a magnetic field to create a known domain imbalance in FeF2, then measure the spin-flip asymmetry at (0.5,0.5,1.5); unequal intensities of the two modes would directly confirm the chiral splitting.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports very-high-resolution inelastic neutron scattering measurements on single-crystal FeF2. Magnon dispersions are mapped in the (H,H,L) plane, and a small splitting is observed that is largest at the Brillouin zone boundary and varies with L along (0.5,0.5,L). This momentum dependence is identified as the signature of long-range dipolar interactions, which mix the altermagnetic chiral modes into linearly polarized modes. The spin-wave dispersion is modeled with a Heisenberg Hamiltonian with single-ion anisotropy and dipole interactions; fitted parameters include D, J1, J2, J4, and J7a+J7b. At half-integer L, where the calculated dipolar splitting vanishes, a q-dependent broadening in the Gaussian peak widths is attributed to altermagnetic chiral splitting, yielding an estimate of roughly 35 micro-eV with J7a-J7b = 5 micro-eV, after adding an ad hoc 28 micro-eV offset to the calculated splitting. Polarized neutron measurements at L=1 show that the two modes separate into non-spin-flip and spin-flip channels, indicating predominantly linear polarization.

Significance. The central observation — that the dominant, clearly resolved magnon splitting in FeF2 has the momentum and L dependence characteristic of dipolar interactions rather than altermagnetic exchange — is an important and convincing result for the altermagnetism field. It provides a concrete example where dipolar effects overshadow chiral splitting, and it explains why chiral signals can be weak or absent in rutile fluorides. The polarization analysis is a nice addition, showing linearly polarized modes where dipolar mixing is strong. The paper also makes clear that the altermagnetic contribution is inferred from unresolved broadening, not directly resolved. If the quantitative estimate of ~35 micro-eV is not robust, the abstract's secondary claim needs to be tempered. The modeling is transparent and uses a standard package (SUNNY), and the data appear to be of high quality; these are strengths. However, the altermagnetic splitting estimate depends on several unvalidated assumptions, detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results, Fig. 3(b)] The extraction of the altermagnetic splitting from unresolved broadening is not robust. The calculated chiral splitting for J7a-J7b = 5 micro-eV has a minimum of zero, and an offset of 28 micro-eV is added to match the Gaussian widths. This offset absorbs all constant broadening mechanisms (resolution, mosaicity, magnon-phonon scattering, disorder) without an independent estimate, and it is comparable in size to the q-dependent excess width attributed to chiral splitting. The nominal instrument resolution at the relevant energy transfers is ≲0.15 meV, so the inferred ~35 micro-eV splitting is only about one quarter of the resolution FWHM; the deconvolution is therefore very sensitive to the assumed resolution line shape and to the offset. No uncertainty is reported for J7a-J7b, and the scatter of the fitted widths appears comparable to the effect. Please provide robustness tests (variati
  2. [Conclusions, domain populations] The paper acknowledges in the Conclusions that the relative populations of the two time-reversal-related magnetic domains were not assessed. The relative intensities of the two chiral magnon modes depend on those populations; if the domains are not equally populated, the unresolved two-mode line broadens less than the full chiral splitting would imply. The inferred J7a-J7b = 5 micro-eV and the resulting ~35 micro-eV splitting are therefore degenerate with the unknown domain ratio. This is a load-bearing uncertainty for the quantitative altermagnetic claim in the abstract. The authors should either constrain the domain populations (for example from the intensities of resolved modes in a region where dipolar splitting is large) or reformulate the 35 micro-eV number as contingent on the assumption of equal domain populations.
  3. [Methods, dipole model] The magnitude of the dipolar splitting, which underlies the central claim that dipolar interactions dominate, is calibrated by setting the permittivity in the SUNNY dipole interaction to 85% of the free-space value 'to best match the observed size of the dipolar splitting' (Methods). This is an effective free parameter, and no independent justification or uncertainty is given. The momentum and L dependence of the splitting is robust and strongly supports the dipolar mechanism, but the comparison of the dipolar and altermagnetic amplitudes would be more convincing if the sensitivity of the fitted J7a-J7b and the chiral splitting to the permittivity were reported, e.g., by varying it over a physically reasonable range.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] Typo: 'produces' should be 'produced'.
  2. [Methods] The sentence 'The color maps in Figures 3 and 4 were generated with a bin sizes' has a grammatical error; also, the bin-size specifications could be consolidated.
  3. [End Matter] The first-moment sum rule in Eq. (2) is used to argue that J3-J6 are small, but the connection between the fitted dispersion parameters (which include J4 and J7a+J7b) and the intensity-only fit (which includes only D and J2) is not fully reconciled. A sentence clarifying that the intensity fit is a consistency check, not a refinement, would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dipolar-dominance claim is anchored to q-dependent signatures, and the altermagnetic splitting is transparently presented as a fit rather than a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's primary claim — that dipolar interactions dominate the observed magnon splitting — is supported by a momentum-dependence argument that does not reduce to a fitted parameter. The observed splitting is largest at the Brillouin-zone boundary and vanishes at half-integer L, matching the calculated dipolar splitting (Fig. 1(b)) and contradicting the expected altermagnetic chiral splitting, which vanishes at the zone boundary (Fig. 1(c)). The dipole strength is calibrated by setting the permittivity to 85% of free space 'to best match the observed size of the dipolar splitting' (Methods), but the distinguishing q- and L-dependence is independent of that scale. The secondary quantitative claim, J7a−J7b = 5 μeV yielding a ~35 μeV chiral splitting, is obtained by fitting unresolved Gaussian widths with an added 28 μeV offset (Results, Fig. 3(b)); the paper explicitly labels this as an 'estimate' and a 'suggest[ion]', not as a parameter-free prediction. This is a data-model fit, not a construction in which the output equals the input. The cited self-items (SHIVER, HYSPEC references, and the sum-rule book chapter) are methodological/instrumental and are not load-bearing for the physics conclusions. The paper explicitly notes that domain populations were not assessed (Conclusions), which weakens the quantitative altermagnetic estimate but does not make the reasoning circular. No step reduces to an input by definition, and no load-bearing argument relies on an unverified self-citation. The minor score reflects the presence of self-citations to the authors' own software/instrumentation, not any circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or fields are introduced. The analysis rests on a fitted spin Hamiltonian and two modeling choices (dipole permittivity reduction, 28 μeV offset) that directly influence the quoted numbers. The only independent structural anchor is the momentum/L dependence of the splitting.

free parameters (8)
  • Single-ion anisotropy D = 0.82(4) meV
    Fitted to the magnon dispersion; dominant contribution to the 6 meV gap.
  • Exchange J2 = 0.46(2) meV
    Fitted to the dispersion and dominates the large dispersion at integer L.
  • Exchange J1 = -0.030(3) meV
    Fitted; accounts for the ~0.5 meV dispersion along L.
  • Exchange J4 = 0.005(1) meV
    Fitted to subtle half-integer-L dispersion; likely subsumes J3.
  • Exchange sum J7a+J7b = 0.022(7) meV
    Fitted to reproduce the square-shaped dispersion at half-integer L.
  • Exchange anisotropy J7a−J7b = 5 μeV
    Chosen so the model's chiral splitting (≈35 μeV) matches the observed line broadening.
  • Dipole permittivity = 0.85 ε0
    Set to best match the observed size of the dipolar splitting; a fitted calibration of the dipole strength.
  • Calculated-splitting offset = 28 μeV
    Ad hoc offset added to the calculated chiral splitting to compare with measured Gaussian widths.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Linear spin-wave theory (SUNNY) accurately describes the magnon spectrum of FeF2.
    All modeling is done via SUNNY's LSWT; nonlinear effects and higher-order terms are ignored.
  • domain assumption The spin Hamiltonian is of the form H = Σ J_n S_i·S_j − D(S_i^z)^2 + H_dip, with n up to 7.
    Fitted parameters are only valid within this model space; other terms (DM, further neighbors) are assumed negligible.
  • domain assumption The magnetic ground state is the two-sublattice collinear Néel state with moments along c.
    This is the starting point of the spin-wave calculation; no canting or domain imbalance is included in the model.
  • ad hoc to paper The observed excess linewidth at half-integer L is exclusively due to altermagnetic chiral splitting (plus the instrumental/offset term), not magnon-phonon scattering, disorder, or domain population imbalance.
    This assumption allows converting the measured widths into J7a−J7b = 5 μeV and thus the 35 μeV splitting.
  • standard math The first-moment sum rule (Eq. 2) and polarization factor (Eq. 3) apply to the integrated intensity.
    Used in the End Matter to cross-check the D/J2 ratio; standard for single-mode spectra.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Altermagnetic and dipolar splitting of magnons in FeF$_2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DEJEYLTF

@misc{pith2026260104303,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Altermagnetic and dipolar splitting of magnons in FeF$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DEJEYLTF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.04303}
}
abstract

FeF$_2$ is a prototypical rutile antiferromagnet recently proposed as an altermagnet, with a magnetic symmetry that permits spin-split electronic bands and chiral magnons. Using very-high-resolution inelastic neutron scattering on a single crystal of FeF$_2$, we show that the dominant source of magnon splitting is in fact the long-range dipolar interaction rather than altermagnetic exchange terms. At momenta where the dipolar splitting vanishes, we observe additional broadening due to altermagnetic chiral splitting and estimate this splitting to be $\sim$35 $\mu$eV. Polarized measurements further reveal that, where dipolar splitting is present, the chiral magnon modes become mixed and the resulting modes are predominantly linearly polarized, with at most a small chiral component. These findings highlight the significant effect of dipolar interactions on magnon chirality, particularly when altermagnetic interactions are weak.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.04303 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Magnetic order and interactions in FeF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Dipolar splitting in FeF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Altermagnetic peak broadening at half-integer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Magnon polarization at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Scattered intensity, integrated over energy and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. $d$-wave altermagnetism revealed by resonant inelastic X-ray scattering

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    RIXS circular dichroism with d-wave symmetry in La2O3Mn2Se2 provides evidence for d-wave altermagnetism independent of magnon splitting.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Beyond Con- ventional Ferromagnetism and Antiferromagnetism: A Phase with Nonrelativistic Spin and Crystal Rotation Symmetry, Phys. Rev. X12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Emerging Re- search Landscape of Altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. X12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    Krempask´ y, L

    J. Krempask´ y, L. ˇSmejkal, S. W. D’Souza, M. Ha- jlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhl ´ ıˇ rov´ a, F. Alarab, P. C. Constantinou, V. Strocov, D. Usanov, W. R. Pudelko, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, A. Birk Hellenes, Z. Jansa, H. Reichlov´ a, Z. ˇSob´ aˇ n, R. D. Gonzalez Betancourt, P. Wadley, J. Sinova, D. Kriegner, J. Min´ ar, J. H. Dil, and T. Jungwirth, Alter...

    2024

  4. [4]

    S. Lee, S. Lee, S. Jung, J. Jung, D. Kim, Y. Lee, B. Seok, J. Kim, B. G. Park, L. ˇSmejkal, C.-J. Kang, and C. Kim, Broken kramers degeneracy in altermagnetic mnte, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 036702 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    Reimers, L

    S. Reimers, L. Odenbreit, L. ˇSmejkal, V. N. Strocov, P. Constantinou, A. B. Hellenes, R. Jaeschke Ubiergo, W. H. Campos, V. K. Bharadwaj, A. Chakraborty, T. Denneulin, W. Shi, R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, S. Das, M. Kl¨ aui, J. Sinova, and M. Jourdan, Direct observation of altermagnetic band splitting in crsb thin films, Nature Communications15, 2116 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Fedchenko, J

    O. Fedchenko, J. Min´ ar, A. Akashdeep, S. W. D’Souza, D. Vasilyev, O. Tkach, L. Odenbreit, Q. Nguyen, D. Kut- nyakhov, N. Wind, L. Wenthaus, M. Scholz, K. Ross- nagel, M. Hoesch, M. Aeschlimann, B. Stadtm¨ uller, M. Kl¨ aui, G. Sch¨ onhense, T. Jungwirth, A. B. Hel- lenes, G. Jakob, L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and H.-J. Elmers, Observation of time-reversal s...

    2024

  7. [7]

    A. F. Andreev and V. I. Marchenko, Symmetry and the macroscopic dynamics of magnetic materials, Soviet Physics Uspekhi23, 21 (1980)

    1980

  8. [8]

    ˇSmejkal, A

    L. ˇSmejkal, A. Marmodoro, K.-H. Ahn, R. Gonz´ alez- Hern´ andez, I. Turek, S. Mankovsky, H. Ebert, S. W. D’Souza, O. c. v. ˇSipr, J. Sinova, and T. c. v. Jungwirth, Chiral magnons in altermagnetic ruo 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 256703 (2023)

    2023

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    P. A. McClarty, A. Gukasov, and J. G. Rau, Observing altermagnetism using polarized neutrons, Phys. Rev. B 111, L060405 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    Z. Liu, M. Ozeki, S. Asai, S. Itoh, and T. Masuda, Chiral split magnon in altermagnetic mnte, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 156702 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Q. Sun, J. Guo, D. Wang, D. L. Abernathy, W. Tian, and C. Li, Observation of chiral magnon band splitting in altermagnetic hematite, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 186703 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    A. K. Singh, N. Heinsdorf, A. A. Mancilla, J. Bannies, A. Maity, A. I. Kolesnikov, M. Matsuda, M. B. Stone, M. Franz, J. Gaudet, and A. M. Hallas, Chiral spin- split magnons in the metallic altermagnet crsb (2025), arXiv:2511.16086 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    V. C. Morano, Z. Maesen, S. E. Nikitin, J. Lass, D. G. Mazzone, and O. Zaharko, Absence of altermagnetic magnon band splitting in mnf 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 226702 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    Faure, D

    Q. Faure, D. Bounoua, V. Bal´ edent, A. Gukasov, V. O. Garlea, A. Ribeiro, J. G. Rau, S. Petit, and P. McClarty, Altermagnetism revealed by polarized neutrons in mnf 2 (2025), arXiv:2509.07087 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    R. A. Erickson, Neutron diffraction studies of antiferro- magnetism in manganous fluoride and some isomorphous compounds, Phys. Rev.90, 779 (1953)

    1953

  8. [16]

    M. T. Hutchings, B. D. Rainford, and H. J. Guggenheim, Spin waves in antiferromagnetic fef2, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics3, 307 (1970)

    1970

  9. [17]

    B. Winn, U. Filges, V. O. Garlea, M. Graves-Brook, M. Hagen, C. Jiang, M. Kenzelmann, L. Passell, S. M. Shapiro, X. Tong, and I. Zaliznyak, Recent progress on hyspec, and its polarization analysis capabilities, EPJ Web of Conferences83, 03017 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    I. A. Zaliznyak, A. T. Savici, V. O. Garlea, B. Winn, U. Filges, J. Schneeloch, J. M. Tranquada, G. Gu, A. Wang, and C. Petrovic, Polarized neutron scattering on HYSPEC: the HYbrid SPECtrometer at SNS, Journal of Physics: Conference Series862, 012030 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    D. P. Belanger and H. Yoshizawa, Neutron scattering and the critical behavior of the three-dimensional ising anti- ferromagnet fef 2, Phys. Rev. B35, 4823 (1987)

    1987

  12. [20]

    Belanger, P

    D. Belanger, P. Nordblad, A. King, V. Jaccarino, L. Lundgren, and O. Beckman, Critical behavior in anisotropic antiferromagnets, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials31-34, 1095 (1983)

    1983

  13. [21]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi,VESTA3for three-dimensional visualization of crystal, volumetric and morphology data, Journal of Applied Crystallography44, 1272 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    A. T. Savici and I. A. Zaliznyak, SHIVER software (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    implemented in the MANTID package [24]. The reciprocal-space coverage in the vertical (−H, H,0) direction was integrated over a range of±0.05 reciprocal lattice units to produce a three-dimensional data set limited to the (H, H, L) plane. To extract the magnon energies, consta...

  16. [24]

    A. T. Savici, M. A. Gigg, O. Arnold, R. Tolchenov, R. E. Whitfield, S. E. Hahn, W. Zhou, and I. A. Zaliznyak, Efficient data reduction for time-of-flight neutron scat- tering experiments on single crystals, Journal of Applied Crystallography55, 1514 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Arnold, J

    O. Arnold, J. Bilheux, J. Borreguero, A. Buts, S. Camp- bell, L. Chapon, M. Doucet, N. Draper, R. F. Leal, M. Gigg, V. Lynch, A. Markvardsen, D. Mikkelson, R. Mikkelson, R. Miller, K. Palmen, P. Parker, G. Passos, T. Perring, P. Peterson, S. Ren, M. Reuter, A. Savici, J. Taylo...

    2014

  18. [26]

    Dahlbom, H

    D. Dahlbom, H. Zhang, C. Miles, S. Quinn, A. Niraula, B. Thipe, M. Wilson, S. Matin, H. Mankad, S. Hahn, D. Pajerowski, S. Johnston, Z. Wang, H. Lane, Y. W. Li, X. Bai, M. Mourigal, C. D. Batista, and K. Bar- ros, Sunny.jl: A Julia package for spin dynamics (2025), arXiv:2501....

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Z. Jin, T. Gong, J. Liu, H. Yang, Z. Zeng, Y. Cao, and P. Yan, Strong coupling of chiral magnons in altermag- 7 nets, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 126702 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    I. A. Zaliznyak and S.-H. Lee, Magnetic neutron scatter- ing, inModern Techniques for Characterizing Magnetic Materials, edited by Y. Zhu (Springer US, 2005) pp. 3– 64. 8 End Matter: Fit to integrated intensity For a single-mode spin-excitation spectrum, such as the magnon exc...

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.