Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 47 references

In Ba3HoRu2O9, the low-energy INS mode is a collective Ru–Ho spin wave, while the broad ~39 meV feature is an overlap of Ho crystal-field, phonon, and Ru2O9 molecular excitations.

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 ↗

The <6.2 meV INS mode is a collective Ru–Ho spin wave; the broad ~39 meV feature is an unresolved overlap of Ho3+ CEF, phonons, and Ru2O9 molecular magnetism.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-30 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid first INS + multi-probe decomposition on magnetic Ba3HoRu2O9; low-energy spin waves are clean, high-energy 39 meV assignment is an honest overlap claim with a tuned CEF scale. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23490 v2 pith:LHU2V5ZZ submitted 2026-07-26 cond-mat.str-el

Interplay of Spin Waves, Crystal-Field Excitations, and Phonons in Multiferroic Ba3HoRu2O9 revealed by Inelastic Neutron Scattering, Crystal-Field Analysis, and Machine-Learned Phonon Calculations

Ekta Kushwaha , Sayan Ghosh , Gourab Roy , Mohit Kumar , Manh Duc Le , Jhuma Shannigrahi , Som Datta Kaushik , Devashibhai T. Adroja
show 1 more author
Tathamay Basu
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords Ba3HoRu2O9inelastic neutron scatteringspin wavescrystal-field excitationsmultiferroicRu2O9 dimersmachine-learned phonons4d-4f coupling
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.

The reading

This paper maps the elementary excitations of the multiferroic 6H perovskite Ba3HoRu2O9, where Ru2O9 dimers and localized Ho3+ moments sit in the same lattice and their magnetic, crystal-field, and phonon signals pile up in energy. Using inelastic neutron scattering plus linear spin-wave theory, the authors show that the dispersive mode below 6.2 meV is a collective spin wave of the exchange-coupled Ru–Ho network, not an isolated dimer excitation. At higher energy, broad features near 20, 39, 70, and 90 meV survive far above the magnetic ordering temperatures. Crystal-field calculations place strong Ho3+ transitions in the same window as the dominant ~39 meV peak; Raman spectra and machine-learned phonon calculations place optical phonons there as well; prior work on nonmagnetic analogues already found Ru2O9 molecular magnetism nearby. The central claim is therefore that the ~39 meV INS intensity is a composite of all three channels, giving a microscopic picture of how spin, crystal field, and lattice degrees of freedom talk to one another in this spin-driven ferroelectric 4d–4f oxide.

Core claim

The dispersive excitation below 6.2 meV is a collective spin-wave mode of the coupled Ru–Ho magnetic network, reproduced by a minimal Heisenberg model with dominant intradimer Ru–Ru and Ru–Ho exchanges plus easy-axis anisotropy on Ho. The broad high-energy INS feature near 39 meV is not a single pure excitation; it is consistent with overlapping Ho3+ crystal-field transitions, optical phonons, and Ru2O9 molecular magnetic excitations that remain visible well above magnetic ordering.

What carries the argument

A multi-probe assignment stack: linear spin-wave theory (SpinW) for the low-energy mode; Stevens-operator crystal-field calculations (point-charge start, uniform scale factor λ ≈ 1.51) for Ho3+ CEF intensities; Raman plus machine-learned force-field phonon spectra for the lattice contribution—used together to separate and then recombine the channels that pile up near 39 meV.

Load-bearing premise

That uniformly scaling all six point-charge crystal-field parameters by one overall factor is enough to put the strongest Ho3+ transition at the observed ~39 meV peak, even though only one prominent INS feature is available to constrain six independent parameters.

What would settle it

A high-resolution single-crystal INS measurement (or a magnetic-dilution / nonmagnetic-R analogue comparison) that cleanly separates Q- and temperature-dependent magnetic form-factor weight from phonon weight near 39 meV, or a multi-peak CEF fit that fails once the scale factor is no longer free.

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

If this is right

  • Low-energy magnetism in magnetic Ba3RRu2O9 members is governed by a Ru2O9–R network, not by isolated Ru dimers alone.
  • High-energy INS intensity near 39 meV in this family cannot be assigned to CEF, phonons, or molecular magnetism in isolation; all three must be modeled together.
  • The same multi-probe template (spin waves + CEF + ML phonons + Raman) can be reused on other spin-driven ferroelectric 4d–4f ruthenates to map spin–lattice coupling channels.
  • Exchange hierarchy J1(Ru–Ru) ≈ J2(Ru–Ho) ≫ J3, J4 supplies a microscopic reason for simultaneous Ru and Ho ordering and for the second low-T magnetic phase.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the ~39 meV composite channel is the main spin–lattice doorway, pressure or rare-earth substitution that shifts CEF levels relative to optical phonons should tune the magnetoelectric response without destroying the Ru2O9 building block.
  • The under-determined CEF scale suggests that polarized INS or optical magneto-spectroscopy on single crystals would be the highest-leverage next experiment for this compound.
  • Analogous overlap problems likely appear in other multiferroic 4d–4f and 5d–4f oxides where molecular clusters and rare-earth moments coexist; the paper’s assignment logic generalizes beyond the Ho member.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The authors present powder inelastic neutron scattering (MARI, Ei = 11.3/28.3/160 meV, 1.8–300 K) on the 6H-perovskite multiferroic Ba3HoRu2O9, complemented by SpinW linear spin-wave calculations, point-charge/Stevens crystal-field analysis (PyCrystalField), Raman spectroscopy, and machine-learned force-field (MLFF) phonon calculations. The low-energy claim is that a dispersive excitation below 6.2 meV, which collapses above TN2 ≈ 10 K, is a collective spin-wave mode of the coupled Ru–Ho network, reproduced with a four-exchange (J1–J4) Heisenberg model plus Ho easy-axis anisotropy. The high-energy claim is deliberately modest: broad features near 20, 39, 70, and 90 meV persist to 300 K and are interpreted as overlapping Ho3+ CEF transitions, optical phonons, and (by analogy to nonmagnetic family members) Ru2O9 molecular magnetic excitations, with no single origin assigned. The CEF component rests on a point-charge model whose Stevens parameters are uniformly scaled by λ = 1.51, a factor chosen so the dominant calculated transition lands on the observed 39 meV peak.

Significance. This is, to my knowledge, the first INS study of a magnetically ordered member of the Ba3RRu2O9 family, and it delivers a concrete, falsifiable microscopic output: a set of exchange constants and an anisotropy for a spin-driven ferroelectric with cooperative 4d–4f ordering, plus a simulated powder-averaged phonon spectrum benchmarked against high-Q data. The multi-technique design (INS + SpinW + CEF + Raman + MLFF) is appropriate to the problem of disentangling overlapping magnetic/CEF/lattice excitations, and the low-energy analysis — temperature collapse above TN2, Q-dependence, and a SpinW contour matching the data — is convincing. I also credit the authors for stating plainly that the CEF refinement is under-determined (six Stevens parameters, one resolved peak) and that the 39 meV feature cannot be assigned to a single origin; this hedging is appropriate and makes the central conclusion robust even where individual components are weak. The high-energy section is correspondingly less quantitative: the CEF scaling is a one-parameter calibration rather than a fit, and (as detailed below) the SI tables appear internally inconsistent with the stated scaling procedure.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II.C, Tables S2–S4, Fig. S3–S4] Internal inconsistency in the CEF scaling analysis. If all six Stevens parameters are multiplied by a single factor λ = 1.51, the CEF Hamiltonian is scaled uniformly: its eigenvectors — and hence all magnetic-dipole matrix elements and relative INS intensities — must be exactly unchanged, with only the energies rescaling. The energies in Table S4 do scale exactly (e.g., GS→6: 25.815 × 1.51 = 38.98 meV), but the relative intensities change dramatically and non-uniformly: GS→7 goes from 0.075 (Table S2) to 0.905 (Table S4), while GS→8 goes from 0.774 to 0.087. This is incompatible with the stated procedure. Either the scaling was not in fact uniform, the transitions were re-indexed/mislabeled between tables, or the tables contain errors. Since Table II's 'final Stevens parameters' and the text's claim that 'relative transition probabilities remain nearly unchanged' both rest on this analys
  2. [§II.A, Table I, Fig. 3] The spin-wave fit is not reproducible as reported. The manuscript does not state the spin quantum numbers or ordered moments used for the Ru sites (mixed-valence ~Ru4.5+, seven 4d electrons per dimer — was an effective dimer spin or individual Ru spins used?) or for Ho (S = 2 vs. J = 8), nor the goodness-of-fit metric, the number of independent data constraints, or uncertainties on J1–J4 and Dzz. J3 and J4 are both reported as exactly −0.05 meV; please state whether they were constrained to be equal. Without this information the central quantitative output of the low-energy section — the hierarchy J1 ≈ J2 ≫ J3, J4 — cannot be independently assessed, and the statement that the spectrum 'cannot be satisfactorily reproduced' without J3/J4 is unsubstantiated (what changes, and by how much?).
  3. [§II.B, Fig. 4–5, Fig. S1] The mixed-origin interpretation of the 39 meV feature would be substantially strengthened by two quantitative checks the data already support. (i) The Gaussian analysis reports a 28% drop in integrated intensity from 1.8 K to 300 K; this should be compared against the calculable expectations — a ground-state CEF transition loses intensity per the Boltzmann population of the ground doublet (predictable from the authors' own level scheme), whereas one-phonon intensity grows with the Bose factor. A stated quantitative comparison would turn the 'overlapping contributions' claim from qualitative to semi-quantitative. (ii) The claim that the peak is 'considerably broader than expected for a resolution-limited CEF excitation' requires the MARI resolution at Ei = 160 meV, E ≈ 39 meV to be stated explicitly.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§II.A] Exchange labels are swapped in the text: 'the comparable magnitude of the Ru–Ho exchange interaction (J1) to the intradimer Ru–Ru interaction (J2)' contradicts Table I, where J1 is Ru–Ru intradimer and J2 is Ru–Ho.
  2. [§II.A, Fig. 2 caption] Incident-energy inconsistency: the text states Ei = 28.3 meV for the low-energy data, while the Fig. 2 caption says Ei = 30 meV.
  3. [§II.B, Fig. 5] The text describing Fig. 5 is garbled: it first assigns the 36–40 meV peak to panels (a,c,d) and then says 'the excitation near 39 meV [Fig. 5(b)]' behaves differently — these are the same feature. Please reconcile text and caption.
  4. [§II.B] 'The integrated intensity (Gaussian area) decreases by 28%, corresponding to a reduction of approximately 28%' — redundant sentence; presumably one clause was meant to give the absolute change.
  5. [§II.E, Fig. 9] MLFF details are insufficient: which pretrained model (MatterSim? INSPIRED framework of Ref. 36) was used, was magnetism included in the force field, and was any compound-specific validation against DFT performed? Since the conclusion 'high-Q response is predominantly phononic' rests on this simulation, one sentence on each point is needed.
  6. [Supplementary Information, Table S2] Table S2 contains a stray '+' in '+GS →13'. Also check the degeneracy/intensity bookkeeping for the Kramers-like doublets listed at identical energies.
  7. [Throughout] Grammar/typography: 'broad excitations ... is observed' (abstract); 'We performed phonon calculations were performed' (§II.E); 'The sample was cool down' (§II); 'The dense distribution of excitation at low energies' is an incomplete sentence (§II.E). The SI title differs from the main title ('in the 6H Perovskite' vs. 'Multiferroic').
  8. [§II (Experimental)] A phonon background correction or empty-can measurement is not described for the 160 meV data; given that phonon scattering is central to the high-energy interpretation, please state how the Al-can contribution was handled.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

CEF scale factor λ=1.51 is chosen so the strongest Ho3+ transition lands on the observed ~39 meV INS peak; energy ‘agreement’ is therefore partly by construction, while spin-wave J’s are standard fits to the same low-energy spectrum they explain.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. C (Crystal-electric-field analysis); Table II; SI Table S3; Figs. 6–7]
    "We selected scaling factor of 1.51 because it minimizes the difference between the calculated dominant transition energy and the experimentally observed excitation near 39 meV. ... the uniformly scaled calculation successfully reproduces the energy of the experimentally observed feature near 39 meV without changing the symmetry-derived ordering of the crystal-field levels."

    The only free overall CEF energy scale is fixed by matching the dominant calculated transition to the same ~39 meV INS peak later used as evidence that Ho3+ CEF transitions lie in that window. After λ is chosen that way, ‘agreement’ of the strongest CEF energy with experiment is true by construction; only the preserved ratios/intensities and the refusal of an exclusive CEF assignment keep this from being fully circular.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. A (Low-energy magnetic excitations); Table I; Fig. 3; Hamiltonian after Fig. 2]
    "The magnetic excitation of Ba3HoRu2O9 is well reproduced (Fig.3) using a minimal Heisenberg Hamiltonian incorporating the four exchange interactions listed in Table I together with easy axis anisotropy. ... To accurately model the magnetic ground state, we incorporated easy-axis term Dzz = -0.25 meV at the Ho3+ site which is important for stabilizing the magnetic structure and helps to reproduce the experimentally observed spin wave excitation. This result indicates that the excitation below 6.2 meV originates from collective spin-wave excitations..."

    J1–J4 and Dzz are optimized so SpinW matches the measured low-energy INS map/cut; that match is then taken to establish the mode as a collective Ru–Ho spin wave. The spectral shape is therefore fitted rather than predicted parameter-free. Mitigating (non-circular) evidence remains: disappearance above TN2, magnetic Q-weighting, and hierarchy arguments from structure—so this is ordinary spin-wave phenomenology, not a pure definitional loop.

full rationale

The paper’s multi-technique narrative is largely non-circular: Raman modes, MLFF powder-averaged phonon intensities, Q-dependence of INS, and temperature persistence above TN supply independent constraints on phonons versus magnetism. Two modeling steps, however, tune parameters to the same INS features later cited as support. (1) Linear spin-wave theory optimizes J1–J4 and Ho easy-axis anisotropy against the dispersive mode below 6.2 meV and then presents the match as establishing a collective Ru–Ho spin wave—standard Heisenberg fitting, not a first-principles prediction, but still a fit-to-same-data loop. (2) More load-bearing for the high-energy claim: the point-charge Stevens set places the strongest CEF intensity near 25–30 meV; a uniform scale λ=1.51 is selected expressly because it minimizes the mismatch to the experimental ~39 meV peak, after which the scaled spectrum is said to ‘reproduce’ that feature. Relative CEF intensities and level ordering retain some independent content, and the authors correctly refuse a unique CEF-only assignment, so the circularity is partial rather than total. Overall score 4: fitted inputs dressed as agreement on the CEF energy scale, with the broader overlapping-origin conclusion still resting on external phonon/Raman and Q/T evidence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central low-energy claim rests on linear spin-wave theory for the published magnetic structures plus four fitted exchanges and one anisotropy. The high-energy claim rests on a point-charge Stevens CEF model whose overall scale is adjusted to the data, on the assumption that Raman/MLFF phonons and literature Ru2O9 modes can sit under the same broad INS envelope, and on the usual dipole approximation for neutron CEF intensities. No new particles or forces are invented.

free parameters (6)
  • J1 (Ru–Ru intradimer) = 1.57 meV (AFM)
    Heisenberg exchange fitted inside SpinW to reproduce the <6.2 meV INS dispersion and intensity.
  • J2 (Ru–Ho) = 1.45 meV (AFM)
    Fitted exchange mediating simultaneous Ru/Ho order; comparable to J1 by construction of the fit.
  • J3 (Ru–Ru interdimer) = -0.05 meV (FM)
    Weak interdimer exchange retained because omitting it degrades the spin-wave match.
  • J4 (Ho–Ho) = -0.05 meV (FM)
    Weak Ho–Ho exchange; same role as J3.
  • Dzz (Ho easy-axis anisotropy) = -0.25 meV
    Single-ion anisotropy added at Ho to stabilize the observed structure and match the spin-wave spectrum.
  • CEF uniform scale factor λ = 1.51
    Overall multiplier applied to all six point-charge Stevens Bkq so the strongest calculated Ho3+ transition moves from ~26 meV to the experimental ~39 meV peak; chosen by minimizing that energy difference (Table S3).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Linear spin-wave theory on a Heisenberg Hamiltonian plus single-ion anisotropy adequately describes the low-energy magnetic excitations of the ordered Ru–Ho network.
    Invoked throughout Sec. A and the SpinW modelling; standard for collinear/noncollinear ordered magnets but neglects quantum renormalization and multi-magnon continuum weight.
  • domain assumption Ho3+ CEF Hamiltonian is exhausted by the six Stevens operators allowed by D3d symmetry; neutron intensities follow magnetic-dipole matrix elements.
    Sec. C / PyCrystalField analysis; standard rare-earth CEF practice.
  • ad hoc to paper A uniform scale of all point-charge Bkq (preserving ratios) is a sufficient surrogate for a full CEF refinement when only one strong INS peak is resolved.
    Explicitly adopted in Sec. C because six parameters cannot be refined from one feature; this is the load-bearing modelling choice for the CEF part of the 39 meV assignment.
  • domain assumption Optical phonons computed by the pretrained MLFF (INSPIRED/MatterSim-style) and Γ-point Raman modes are faithful enough to identify lattice weight under the high-energy INS envelope.
    Secs. D–E; dynamical stability (no imaginary modes) is checked, but absolute intensity calibration against INS is not independently validated on this compound.
  • domain assumption Localized Ru2O9 molecular magnetic excitations reported for nonmagnetic R = In, Y, Lu analogues remain present at similar energies when R = Ho.
    Used in the abstract, Sec. C and conclusion to complete the three-way overlap at ~39 meV; not re-measured in isolation here.

reviewed 2026-07-30 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interplay of Spin Waves, Crystal-Field Excitations, and Phonons in Multiferroic Ba3HoRu2O9 revealed by Inelastic Neutron Scattering, Crystal-Field Analysis, and Machine-Learned Phonon Calculations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LHU2V5ZZ

@misc{pith2026260723490,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interplay of Spin Waves, Crystal-Field Excitations, and Phonons in Multiferroic Ba3HoRu2O9 revealed by Inelastic Neutron Scattering, Crystal-Field Analysis, and Machine-Learned Phonon Calculations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LHU2V5ZZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23490}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Understanding the microscopic origin of spin-dipole coupling and high-energy excitations in correlated 4d-4f multiferroic oxides is challenging because magnetic, crystal-field, and lattice excitations frequently overlap in energy. The hexagonal 6H perovskite Ba3HoRu2O9 provides an ideal platform to investigate this interplay owing to the coexistence of Ru2O9 molecular units and localized Ho3+ moments. To identify the contributions from these different excitations, we combine inelastic neutron scattering (INS) with linear spin-wave calculations, crystal-field analysis, Raman spectroscopy, and machine-learned force field (MLFF) phonon calculations. A dispersive magnetic excitation below 6.2 meV is accurately reproduced by linear spin-wave theory, establishing its origin as a collective spin-wave excitation of the coupled Ru-Ho magnetic network. At higher energies, broad excitations centered near 20, 39, 70, and 90 meV is observed that are present far above magnetic ordering temperature. Crystal-field calculations based on the Stevens formalism place the strongest Ho3+ transitions within the experimentally observed energy window, while Raman spectroscopy and MLFF phonon calculations identify optical phonons with comparable energies. Together, these complementary results show that the broad INS feature near 39 meV is consistent with overlapping contributions from Ho3+ crystal-field excitations, lattice vibrations, and previously reported Ru2O9 molecular magnetic excitations. These findings establish a microscopic framework for understanding the interplay between spin, crystal-field, and lattice degrees of freedom in this multiferroic 4d-4f compound.

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

47 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Cava, R. J. (2004). Schizophrenic electrons in ruthenium -based oxides. Dalton transactions, (19), 2979-2987

    2004

  2. [2]

    Dhingra, A., Komesu, T., Kumar, S., Shimada, K., Zhang, L., Hong, X., & Dowben, P. A. (2021). Electronic band structure of iridates. Materials Horizons, 8(8), 2151-2168

    2021

  3. [3]

    and Kim, Y .J., (2012)

    Clancy, J.P., Chen, N., Kim, C.Y ., Chen, W.F., Plumb, K.W., Jeon, B.C., Noh, T.W. and Kim, Y .J., (2012). Spin-orbit coupling in iridium-based 5 d compounds probed by x-ray absorption spectroscopy. Physical Review B —Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, 86(19), p.195131

    2012

  4. [4]

    and Cheong, S.W., (2004)

    Hur, N., Park, S., Sharma, P.A., Ahn, J.S., Guha, S. and Cheong, S.W., (2004). Electric polarization reversal and memory in a multiferroic material induced by magnetic fields. Nature, 429(6990), pp.392-395

    2004

  5. [5]

    and Cheong, S.W., (2004)

    Chapon, L.C., Blake, G.R., Gutmann, M.J., Park, S., Hur, N., Radaelli, P.G. and Cheong, S.W., (2004). Structural anomalies and multiferroic beh avior in magnetically frustrated T b M n 2 O 5. Physical review letters, 93(17), p.177402

    2004

  6. [6]

    and Tokura, Y ., (2003)

    Kimura, T., Goto, T., Shintani, H., Ishizaka, K., Arima, T. and Tokura, Y ., (2003). Magnetic Control of Ferroelectric Polarization, Nature 426, 55

    2003

  7. [7]

    Basu, T., Singh, K., Gohil, S., Ghosh, S., & Sampathkumaran, E. V . (2015). Implications of magnetic and magnetodielectric behavior of GdCrTiO5. Journal of Applied Physics, 118(23)

    2015

  8. [8]

    Autieri, C., Cuono, G., Chakraborty, D., Gentile, P., & Black -Schaffer, A. M. (2025). Conditions for orbital -selective altermagnetism in Sr 2 RuO 4: Tight -binding model, similarities with cuprates, and implications for superconductivity. Physical Review B, 112(1), 014412

    2025

  9. [9]

    Q., Kimura, T., & Wakabayashi, Y

    Ishiguro, Y ., Kimura, K., Nakatsuji, S., Tsutsui, S., Baron, A. Q., Kimura, T., & Wakabayashi, Y . (2013). Dynamical spin-orbital correlation in the frustrated magnet Ba3CuSb2O9. Nature communications, 4(1), 2022

    2013

  10. [10]

    Spin-correlation driven ferroelectric quantum criticality in a perovskite quantum spin -liquid system, Ba3CuSb2O9

    Ghosh, S., Roy G., Kushwaha E., Kumar M., Basu T., (2026). Spin-correlation driven ferroelectric quantum criticality in a perovskite quantum spin -liquid system, Ba3CuSb2O9. J. Mater. Chem. C, 14 (20), 8482-8487

    2026

  11. [11]

    B., & Balents, L

    Witczak-Krempa, W., Chen, G., Kim, Y . B., & Balents, L. (2014). Correlated quantum phenomena in the strong spin -orbit regime. Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. , 5(1), 57-82

    2014

  12. [12]

    V ., & Khomskii, D

    Streltsov, S. V ., & Khomskii, D. I. (2016). Covalent bonds against magnetism in transition metal compounds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(38), 10491-10496

    2016

  13. [13]

    A., Sinclair, R., Chen, Q., Zhou, H

    Ziat, D., Aczel, A. A., Sinclair, R., Chen, Q., Zhou, H. D., Williams, T. J., Stone, M.B., Verrier, A. & Quilliam, J. A. (2017). Frustrated spin -1 2 molecular magnetism in the mixed-valence antiferromagnets Ba 3 M Ru 2 O 9 (M= In, Y , Lu). Physical Review B, 95(18), 184424

    2017

  14. [14]

    and Kolesnikov, A.I., (2020)

    Chen, Q., Verrier, A., Ziat, D., Clune, A.J., Rouane, R., Bazier -Matte, X., Wang, G., Calder, S., Taddei, K.M., Cruz, C.D. and Kolesnikov, A.I., (2020). Realization of the orbital-selective Mott state at the molecular level in Ba 3 LaRu 2 O 9. Physical Review Materials, 4(6), p.064409

    2020

  15. [15]

    and Aczel, A.A., (2019)

    Chen, Q., Fan, S., Taddei, K.M., Stone, M.B., Kolesnikov, A.I., Cheng, J., Musfeldt, J.L., Zhou, H. and Aczel, A.A., (2019). Large positive zero-field splitting in the cluster magnet Ba3CeRu2O9. Journal of the American Chemical S ociety, 141(25), pp.9928- 9936

    2019

  16. [16]

    & Keimer, B

    Hayashida, S., Gretarsson, H., Puphal, P., Isobe, M., Goering, E., Matsumoto, Y ., Nuss, J., Takagi, H., Hepting, M. & Keimer, B. (2025). Magnetic ground state of the dimer- based hexagonal perovskite Ba 3 ZnRu 2 O 9. Physical Review B, 111(10), 104418

    2025

  17. [17]

    and Attfield, J.P., (2013)

    Senn, M.S., Kimber, S.A., Arevalo Lopez, A.M., Hill, A.H. and Attfield, J.P., (2013). Spin orders and lattice distortions of geometrically frustrated 6H -perovskites Ba 3 B ′ Ru 2 O 9 (B ′= La 3+, Nd 3+, and Y 3+). Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, 87(13), p.134402

    2013

  18. [18]

    and Krohns, S., (2018)

    Basu, T., Pautrat, A., Hardy, V ., Loidl, A. and Krohns, S., (2018). Magnetodielectric coupling in a Ru-based 6H-perovskite, Ba3NdRu2O9. Applied Physics Letters, 113(4)

    2018

  19. [19]

    and Raveau, B., 2019

    Basu, T., Caignaert, V ., Ghara, S., Ke, X., Pautrat, A., Krohns, S., Loidl, A. and Raveau, B., 2019. Enhancement of magnetodielectric coupling in 6H -perovskites Ba 3 R Ru 2 O 9 for heavier rare -earth cations (R= Ho, Tb). Physical Review Materials , 3(11), p.114401

    2019

  20. [20]

    and Ke, X., (2020)

    Basu, T., Caignaert, V ., Damay, F., Heitmann, T.W., Raveau, B. and Ke, X., (2020). Cooperative Ru (4 d) -Ho (4 f) magnetic ordering and phase coexistence in the 6 H perovskite multiferroic Ba 3 Ho Ru 2 O 9. Physical Review B, 102(2), p.020409

    2020

  21. [21]

    and Ehlers, G., (2005)

    Gardner, J.S., Cornelius, A.L., Chang, L.J., Prager, M., Brückel, T. and Ehlers, G., (2005). Spin dynamics in Ho2Ru2O7. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter , 17(44), p.7089

    2005

  22. [22]

    and Stewart, J.R., (2026)

    Museur, F., Robert, J., Morineau, F., Bujault, N., Simonet, V ., Pachoud, E., Hadj - Azzem, A., Colin, C.V ., Mangin -Thro, L., Manuel, P. and Stewart, J.R., (2026). Ferromagnetic fragmented state in the pyrochlore Ho 2 Ru 2 O 7. Physical Review B, 113(6), p.L060406

    2026

  23. [23]

    and Langridge, S., (2020)

    Adroja, D.T., Sharma, S., Ritter, C., Hillier, A.D., Le, D., Tomy, C.V ., Singh, R., Smith, R.I., Koza, M., Sundaresan, A. and Langridge, S., (2020). Muon spin rotation and neutron scattering investigations of the B-site ordered double perovskite S r 2 DyRu O

    2020

  24. [24]

    Physical Review B, 101(9), p.094413

  25. [25]

    and Basu, T., (2026)

    Roy, G., Kushwaha, E., Kumar, M ., Ghosh, S., Orlandi, F., Le, D., Stone, M.B., Sannigrahi, J., Adroja, D.T. and Basu, T., (2026). Quasiparticle Dynamics in the 4d-4f Ising-like Double Perovskite Ba2DyRuO6 Probed by Neutron Scattering and Machine- Learning Framework. Physical Review B, 113(17), 174416

    2026

  26. [26]

    Doi, Y ., & Hinatsu, Y . (2002). Magnetic and calorimetric studies on Ba3LnRu2O9 (Ln= Gd, Ho –Yb) with 6H -perovskite structure. Journal of Materials Chemistry , 12(6), 1792-1795

    2002

  27. [27]

    Doi, Y ., Wakeshima, M., Hinatsu, Y ., Tobo, A., Ohoyama, K., & Yamaguchi, Y . (2001). Crystal structures and magnetic properties of the 6H -perovskites Ba3LnRu2O9 (Ln= Ce, Pr and Tb). Journal of Materials Chemistry, 11(12), 3135-3140

    2001

  28. [28]

    M., Kumar, M., Ghosh, S., Heitmann, T., & Basu, T

    Kushwaha, E., Roy, G., dos Santos, A. M., Kumar, M., Ghosh, S., Heitmann, T., & Basu, T. (2025). Unconventional S-orbital state of Tb and cooperative Ru (4d)–Tb (4f) spin-ordering in the strongly correlated 4d -4f system Ba 3 TbRu 2 O 9. Journal of Materials Chemistry C, 13(30), 15384-15389

    2025

  29. [29]

    and Basu, T., (2026)

    Kumar, M., Ghosh, S., Roy, G., Kushwaha, E., Caignae rt, V ., Prellier, W., Majumdar, S., Hardy, V . and Basu, T., (2026). Intriguing Magnetocaloric Effect in Multiferroic Ba3RRu2O9 (R= Ho, Gd, Tb, Nd) with Strong 4d–4f Correlations. ACS Applied Energy Materials, 9(8), pp.5141-5147

    2026

  30. [30]

    and Basu, T., (2024)

    Kushwaha, E., Roy, G., Kuma r, M., dos Santos, A.M., Ghosh, S., Adroja, D.T., Caignaert, V ., Perez, O., Pautrat, A. and Basu, T., (2024). Origin of spin -driven ferroelectricity and effect of external pressure on the complex magnetism of the 6 H perovskite Ba 3 Ho Ru 2 O 9. Physical Review B, 109(22), p.224418

    2024

  31. [31]

    and Moorby, S.R., (2023)

    Le, M.D., Guidi, T., Bewley, R., Stewart, J.R., Schooneveld, E.M., Raspino, D., Pooley, D.E., Boxall, J., Gascoyne, K.F., Rhodes, N.J. and Moorby, S.R., (2023). Upgrade of the MARI spectrometer at ISIS. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment , 1056, p.168646

    2023

  32. [32]

    -C., Borreguero, J.M., Buts, A., Campbell, S.I., Chapon, L., Doucet, M., Draper, N., Leal, R.F., Gigg, M

    Arnold, O., Bilheux, J. -C., Borreguero, J.M., Buts, A., Campbell, S.I., Chapon, L., Doucet, M., Draper, N., Leal, R.F., Gigg, M. et al., (2014). Mantid: Data analysis and visualization package for neutron scattering and μSR experiments. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, 764, pp.156-166

    2014

  33. [33]

    and Dimeo, R.M., (2009)

    Azuah, R.T., Kneller, L.R., Qiu, Y ., Tregenna-Piggott, P.L., Brown, C.M., Copley, J.R. and Dimeo, R.M., (2009). DA VE: a comprehensive software suite for the reduction, visualization, and analysis of low energy neutron spectroscopic data. Journal of research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 114(6), p.341

    2009

  34. [34]

    and Lake, B., (2015)

    Toth, S. and Lake, B., (2015). Linear spin wave theory for single -Q incommensurate magnetic structures. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 27(16), p.166002

    2015

  35. [35]

    Scheie, A. (2021). PyCrystalField: software for calculation, analysis and fitting of crystal electric field Hamiltonians. Applied Crystallography, 54(1), 356-362

    2021

  36. [36]

    and Horton, M., (2024)

    Yang, H., Hu, C., Zhou, Y ., Liu, X., Shi, Y ., Li, J., Li, G., Chen, Z., Chen, S., Zeni, C. and Horton, M., (2024). Mattersim: A deep learning atomistic model across elements, temperatures and pressures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04967

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    and Ramirez- Cuesta, A.J., (2023)

    Cheng, Y ., Wu, G., Pajerowski, D.M., Stone, M.B., Savici, A.T., Li, M. and Ramirez- Cuesta, A.J., (2023). Direct prediction of inelastic neutron scattering spectra from the crystal structure. Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 4(1), p.015010

    2023

  38. [38]

    The Supporting Information (SI) contains the Gaussian Fitting and CEF calculation Figures

  39. [39]

    and Streltsov, S.V ., (2015)

    Kugel, K.I., Khomskii, D.I., Sboychakov, A.O. and Streltsov, S.V ., (2015). Spin-orbital interaction for face-sharing octahedra: Realization of a highly symmetric SU (4) model. Physical Review B, 91(15), p.155125

    2015

  40. [40]

    Matrix elements and operator equivalents connected with the magnetic properties of rare earth ions

    Stevens, K.W.H., 1952. Matrix elements and operator equivalents connected with the magnetic properties of rare earth ions. Proceedings of the Physical Society. Section A, 65(3), pp.209-215

    1952

  41. [41]

    Point-charge calculations of energy levels of magnetic ions in crystalline electric fields

    Hutchings, M.T., (1964). Point-charge calculations of energy levels of magnetic ions in crystalline electric fields. In: Solid State Physics, Vol. 16. Academic Press, New York, pp.227-273

    1964

  42. [42]

    I., Perez-Mato, J

    Kroumova, E., Aroyo, M. I., Perez-Mato, J. M., Kirov, A., Capillas, C., Ivantchev, S., and Wondratschek, H., (2003). Bilbao Crystallographic Server: Useful databases and tools for phase-transition studies. Phase Transitions 76, 155–170

    2003

  43. [43]

    B., Zhou, H., & Mourigal, M

    Dun, Z., Bai, X., Stone, M. B., Zhou, H., & Mourigal, M. (2021). Effective point- charge analysis of crystal fields: Application to rare-earth pyrochlores and tripod kagome magnets R 3 Mg 2 Sb 3 O 14. Physical Review Research, 3(2), 023012

    2021

  44. [44]

    and Iliev, M.N., (2002)

    Kolev, N., Chen, C.L., Gospodinov, M., Bontchev, R.P., Popov, V .N., Litvinchuk, A.P., Abrashev, M.V ., Hadjiev, V .G. and Iliev, M.N., (2002). Raman spectroscopy of CaRuO

    2002

  45. [45]

    Physical Review B, 66(1), p.014101

  46. [46]

    and Popov, V .N., (1999)

    Iliev, M.N., Litvinchuk, A.P., Lee, H.G., Chen, C.L., Dezaneti, M.L., Chu, C.W., Ivanov, V .G., Abrashev, M.V . and Popov, V .N., (1999). Raman spectroscopy of SrRuO 3 near the paramagnetic -to-ferromagnetic phase transition. Physical Review B , 59(1), p.364

    1999

  47. [47]

    Rosalin, M., Telang, P., Singh, S., Muthu, D. V . S., & Sood, A. K. (2024). Magnon excitation and spin -phonon coupling in A 2 Ir 2 O 7 (A= Gd, Dy, and Er). Physical Review B, 109(18), 184434. Interplay of Spin Waves, Crystal-Field Excitations, and Phonons in the 6H Perovskite Ba3HoRu2O9 revealed by Inelastic Neutron Scattering, Crystal-Field Analysis, an...

    2024

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 30, 2026.