Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Helical-to-Fan Transitions under Magnetic Fields in the Noncentrosymmetric Tetragonal Magnet EuRhGe$_3$

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

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

Pith's one-line read EuRhGe3 shows the full field-driven sequence of magnetic structures, from a circular helix to a planar fan, passing through a spin-flop xyz-fan phase.

desk verdict Careful diffraction study that solidly establishes the zero-field helix, the 2q soliton-lattice distortion, and the lock-in at q=0.8, but the advertised xyz-fan phase IV rests on an explicitly non-rigorous subtraction analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05709 v1 pith:5LP5D55J submitted 2026-08-06 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Takeshi Matsumura , Hiroto Nitta , Hironori Nakao , Masashi Kakihana , Masato Hedo , Takao Nakama , Yoshichika Ōnuki This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords EuRhGe3helimagnetismresonantX-raydiffractionmagneticphasediagramsolitonlatticexyz-fanstructureellipticconicalnoncentrosymmetricmagnet
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

EuRhGe3, a noncentrosymmetric tetragonal magnet with S=7/2 Eu moments, is claimed to show the full set of field-induced magnetic structures that theory predicts for a helimagnet whose spins prefer to lie in a plane. Using resonant X-ray diffraction with polarization and helicity analysis, the paper identifies the zero-field state as an equal-amplitude ab-plane helix with q=(0,0,0.809), follows its distortion into a soliton-lattice-like structure and a lock-in at q=0.8, and then a phase in which the spins flop partly out of the plane (an xyz-fan, or elliptic conical state) before settling into a planar xy-fan. If the identification of the c-axis component in the intermediate fan is right, EuRhGe3 is the first helimagnet in which this theoretically predicted sequence has been observed in one material.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing probe is resonant X-ray diffraction at the Eu L2 edge with controlled incident polarization and a polarization analyzer. The scattering amplitude $F_{\varepsilon\varepsilon'} = (\varepsilon'^*\times\varepsilon)\cdot m_q$ lets the Fourier components $m_a$, $m_b$, and $m_c$ of the magnetic structure be extracted separately from the $\pi$–$\pi'$ and $\pi$–$\sigma'$ channels, while circular-polarization scans determine the helicity of the spiral. The appearance and disappearance of the $2q$ reflection tracks the soliton-lattice distortion, and the comparison of reflections with different sensitivity to $m_b$ and $m_c$ is what supports the xyz-fan assignment in phase IV.

What would settle it

Measure the (-2,0,8-q) reflection in phase IV with a full linear-polarization analysis at several fields between 5 and 8 T at 2 K: if the inferred m_c does not appear as a distinct polarization signature, or if a direct measurement in a geometry that isolates the c-axis component finds m_c = 0, the xyz-fan identification fails. A single-crystal neutron diffraction experiment in magnetic field would settle the issue directly by mapping all three moment components.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that EuRhGe3 realizes, in a single field sweep at 2 K, the complete helical-to-fan evolution predicted for a planar helimagnet: a circular helix with moments rotating in the ab plane at a constant turn angle of 145.8°, a field-distorted helix of soliton-lattice type marked by a resonant second-harmonic 2q reflection, a commensurate lock-in at q=0.8, then a spin-flop xyz-fan state in which the dominant oscillation is along the b axis but a small c-axis component appears, and finally a planar xy-fan with no c-axis component. The paper argues that phase IV is distinguished from the high-temperature planar fan by an excess intensity in the (-2,0,8-q) reflection that cannot be explained by the b-axis component alone, and it claims this is the first experimental establishment of the full theoretically predicted sequence. The paper is careful to note that the xyz-fan assignment is not rigorously proven by the subtraction analysis.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that phase IV really has a small c-axis component: it is inferred only from the excess intensity of one reflection over what a b-only model predicts, and the paper admits this is not rigorous proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The zero-field order is an equal-amplitude ab-plane helix with q=(0,0,0.809), and the constant turn angle of 145.8° follows directly from the measured Fourier components.
  • Field along the a axis at 2 K first distorts the helix into a soliton-lattice-like state signaled by a growing 2q reflection, then locks it into a commensurate q=0.8 helix between about 4 and 5 T.
  • Above 5 T the a-axis oscillation vanishes, the spins flop partly out of the ab plane, and a small c-axis component produces the xyz-fan (elliptic conical) phase IV.
  • At higher fields the system enters a planar xy-fan without a c-axis component, and at temperatures above roughly 5 K the intermediate xyz-fan phase is skipped entirely.
  • EuRhGe3 is claimed to be the first helimagnet in which the full theoretically predicted helix-to-xyz-fan-to-xy-fan sequence is experimentally realized.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the sequence is generic, other EuTGe3 helimagnets with weaker in-plane anisotropy should show a wider xyz-fan window; the differences already seen in EuIrGe3 and EuNiGe3 offer a controlled family for testing that anisotropy dependence.
  • The absence of a detectable 2q peak in the fan phases suggests the fan is amplitude-modulated rather than equal-moment, which could be connected to the unresolved flat specific-heat anomaly below TN by measuring whether the moment modulation grows as the xyz-fan phase is approached.
  • A quantitative check of the phase-IV assignment would be to compare the (0,0,8+q) and (-2,0,8-q) intensities as functions of field inside phase IV: the model predicts the inferred m_c contribution should scale with distance from the II/III-IV boundary, not simply with the b-axis component.
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. The manuscript reports resonant X-ray diffraction measurements of EuRhGe3 in magnetic fields applied along the a axis. The authors identify the zero-field state as an equal-amplitude incommensurate ab-plane helix with q=(0,0,0.809), document the growth of a 2q component with field and a lock-in transition to q=0.8 at about 3.8 T, and propose that the high-field phases I and IV are planar xy-fan and xyz-fan (elliptic conical) structures, respectively. The paper argues that EuRhGe3 realizes the full theoretically predicted sequence helix → soliton lattice → lock-in → xyz-fan → planar xy-fan.

Significance. If the full sequence is confirmed, EuRhGe3 would be a rare clean experimental realization of the predicted helix-to-fan evolution including an intermediate elliptic conical phase, valuable for helimagnet theory. The zero-field helix and the field-induced 2q and lock-in behaviour are directly supported by the diffraction data, including the helicity dependence and the resonance at the Eu L2 edge. The main weakness is that the xyz-fan assignment rests on an indirect subtraction analysis that the authors themselves state is not rigorous.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.5, Fig. 7] The central claim of an xyz-fan phase in phase IV rests on the inference of mc from the temperature dependence of the (-2,0,8-q) reflection at 6 T. The mb-only prediction (dashed line in Fig. 7(b)) is obtained by transferring mb(T) extracted from (2,0,8-q) to a different scattering geometry, and the mc signal is the difference between a measured intensity and a prediction that contains a 4% mb contamination; no error bars are shown on the data points. The authors explicitly write in §3.5 that the analysis does not constitute a rigorous proof of the existence of mc. This is a load-bearing limitation, because if mc=0, phase IV is a planar fan and the claimed first observation of the full sequence collapses. I ask the authors to either (i) provide a direct measurement of mc, e.g., using a reflection whose intensity is dominated by mc with negligible mb admixture, or a full polarization and azimuthal analysis that separates mb and mc, and to quantify systematic uncertainties such as multiple scattering, Debye-Waller anisotropy, and domain populations; or (ii) revise the abstract and discussion to present the xyz-fan assignment as tentative and not claim that the full sequence is experimentally established.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 4.2] The abstract states that a spin-flop xyz-fan state is realized and that EuRhGe3 provides a prototypical example exhibiting the full sequence, which has been theoretically predicted. However, §3.5 says the mc analysis is not rigorous and §4.2 says phase IV is most likely an elliptic-conical state. This inconsistency is problematic because the reader receives a definitive claim in the abstract that is stronger than the body's own assessment. The wording should be aligned, e.g., by saying the data are consistent with an xyz-fan but that a planar fan in phase IV cannot be excluded.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (5)] The fan structure model in Eq. (5) introduces parameters mc and α that are not constrained by the data except by the upper limit on the 2q intensity; the statement that the actual structure may be described as this form is therefore not a tested model. I recommend either performing a full refinement of the fan structure using all available reflections or clearly labeling the illustrations in Fig. 8 as schematic. This does not affect the phase II and III results but bears on the interpretation of phases I and IV.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 4.1] The turn angle is given as 145.8° in the abstract and 145.6° in Sec. 4.1; please reconcile the two values.
  2. [Summary] In the last paragraph, 'an spin flop xyz-fan phase' should read 'a spin-flop xyz-fan phase'.
  3. [Sec. 3.2] The sentence 'The vanishing of ma indicates that only the component perpendicular to the applied field survives in phase IV above 5 T' is slightly misleading because ma also vanishes at the II-I boundary at 8 K; please specify that this statement refers to the 2 K measurements.
  4. [Sec. 3.3] The measured helicity ratio differs between two sample regions (9:1 versus 6:4), yet the zero-field structure is described as a helix with a well-defined helicity in each domain; please clarify how the helicity is defined and whether the domain population affects the quantitative polarization analysis.
  5. [Fig. 5(a)] The coexistence of incommensurate and commensurate peaks at 3.5 T is described qualitatively; a two-peak fit with residuals would make the lock-in transition more convincing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the phase assignments are data-driven structural refinements; the xyz-fan inference is explicitly labeled non-rigorous, which weakens confidence but does not make the derivation circular.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is experimental rather than derivational: resonant X-ray intensities are converted to magnetic Fourier components through the standard scattering amplitude F=(epsilon'* x epsilon)·m_q (Eq. 1), and ma and mb are obtained by fitting analyzer-angle and helicity data. The 2q peak is used as direct evidence for a soliton-lattice-like distortion, and the lock-in to q=0.8 is read directly from the peak position. Model parameters such as A2q, delta1, delta2, and mF in Sec. 4.1 are fitted to the observed 2q intensity, Fourier components, and bulk magnetization, then used for consistency checks; they are not presented as independent predictions, so this is standard refinement rather than circular reasoning. The only place where a component is inferred indirectly is Sec. 3.5, where mc is introduced to explain the flat temperature dependence of (-2,0,8-q) in phase IV against the mb-only expectation. That is a substantive, testable inference from a different reflection, not a parameter renamed as a result, and the authors explicitly state that the analysis 'does not constitute a rigorous proof of the existence of mc.' The abstract states the xyz-fan conclusion more strongly than the body, but overstatement of confidence is a correctness/evidence concern, not circularity. Self-citations, notably Ref. 36 for the irreducible-representation assignment of the zero-field xy helix, are parameter-free group-theory statements and do not smuggle in the target conclusion. The theoretical predictions cited (Refs. 42-44) are external. No equation in the paper is shown to be equivalent by construction to its own input, and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The 'soliton lattice' and 'xyz-fan' are names for spin textures, not new entities. All numerical parameters in the model structures are fitted to diffraction intensities and bulk magnetization.

free parameters (6)
  • A2q = 0.3
    Amplitude of the second harmonic in Eq. (2), chosen to match the observed 2q intensity in Sec. 4.1.
  • delta1 = -0.08
    Phase modulation parameter in Eq. (4), selected to reproduce the non-uniform turn angle in the soliton-lattice model.
  • delta2 = 0.07
    Second phase modulation parameter in Eq. (4).
  • mF = 0.12 (uniform moment in arbitrary units)
    Ferromagnetic component added in Eq. (2) to match the bulk magnetization of approximately 2.3 muB/Eu; the resulting average moment is quoted as 0.33 of the full moment.
  • alpha = not determined (0 < alpha < 1)
    Modulation amplitude in the fan model of Eq. (5); constrained only by the upper limit on the 2q intensity.
  • mc = small, shown in Fig. 7(c)
    c-axis Fourier component in phase IV, inferred from the excess of the (-2,0,8-q) intensity over the mb-only expectation.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The magnetic scattering amplitude is F_{epsilon epsilon'} = (epsilon'* x epsilon) dot m_q.
    Used in Eq. (1) and throughout the polarization analysis; standard result in resonant X-ray scattering.
  • domain assumption For q=(0,0,zeta) in space group I4mm, the in-plane Fourier component m_q = x + i y belongs to a two-dimensional irreducible representation, so a c-axis component cannot coexist at zero field.
    Invoked in Sec. 3.2 via Ref. 36 to exclude mc at zero field and to justify the xy-helix assignment.
  • domain assumption The diamond phase plate converts linear to circular polarization with Stokes parameters P2 = sin(alpha/delta theta_PR) and P3 = -cos(alpha/delta theta_PR), with alpha calibrated on a charge reflection.
    Used for the helicity analysis in Sec. 3.3 and Appendix A.1; the calibration parameter alpha = 0.0212 degrees is fitted to fundamental Bragg reflection data.
  • domain assumption The 2q peak is of magnetic origin.
    Supported by the resonance at the Eu L2 edge (Sec. 3.4), but the interpretation as a soliton-lattice deformation assumes the peak is not from a lattice distortion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Helical-to-Fan Transitions under Magnetic Fields in the Noncentrosymmetric Tetragonal Magnet EuRhGe$_3$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5LP5D55J

@misc{pith2026260805709,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Helical-to-Fan Transitions under Magnetic Fields in the Noncentrosymmetric Tetragonal Magnet EuRhGe$_3$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5LP5D55J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05709}
}
abstract

The magnetic structure of EuRhGe$_3$, a noncentrosymmetric body-centered tetragonal magnet with the space group $I4mm$, has been investigated by resonant X-ray diffraction. Below $T_{\text{N}}=12$ K, EuRhGe$_3$ undergoes a helical magnetic ordering with an incommensurate propagation vector $q=(0, 0, 0.809)$, in which the magnetic moments lie in the $ab$ plane and rotate by a constant turn angle of $145.8^{\circ}$ between adjacent layers. When a magnetic field is applied along the $a$ axis at 2 K, a second-harmonic $2q$ peak develops, indicating that the circular helix is gradually distorted into a helimagnetic soliton-lattice state, which eventually undergoes a lock-in transition to the commensurate structure with $q=0.8$ at 3.8 T. Above the subsequent phase boundary at 5 T, the helicity is lost, and a spin-flop $xyz$-fan (elliptic conical) state is realized, in which the moments oscillate predominantly along the $b$ axis but are accompanied by a small $c$-axis component. At higher fields, the system enters a conventional planar $xy$-fan phase without a $c$-axis component. EuRhGe$_3$ provides a prototypical example of a helimagnet that exhibits a full sequence of field-induced structures, evolving from a circular helix to a spin-flop $xyz$-fan (elliptic conical), and finally to a planar $xy$-fan structure, which has been theoretically predicted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05709 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Color online) (a) The body-centered tetragonal struc￾ture of EuRhGe3 (point group C4v), which possesses a fourfold ro￾tation axis along the c axis and mirror planes parallel to the c axis. The crystal structure was drawn using the program VESTA.41) (b) Magnetic phase diagram of EuRhGe3 for H k [100] constructed from the bulk property measurements.33) ity unification. These results demonstrate a rich variety of magn… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Color online) (a,b) Temperature dependence of the peak profiles along (0, 0, L) through the (0, 0, 8 + q) and (0, 0, 10 − q) magnetic reflections at the resonance energy of 7.613 keV in zero field. The inset shows the temperature dependence of the magnetic structure factor FM (square root of the intensity) in arbitrary units as a function of the reduced temperature (TN − T)/TN. The solid line represents a fit using… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3(a) shows the evolution of the (0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (Color online) (a) Magnetic-field dependence of the L-scan profiles for (0, 0, 8 + q) at the lowest temperature of 2 K without polarization analysis. The vertical line represents the commensurate position of q = 0.8. (b) Magnetic-field dependence of the integrated inte…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Color online) ∆θPR dependence of the resonant peak intensities for (0, 0, 8 + q) and (0, 0, 10 − q) measured at 0 T, 4 T and 6 T at 2 K. The background has been subtracted. The dashed lines indicate the LCP and RCP positions. The solid lines represent calculated inten…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Color online) (a) Magnetic-field dependence of the peak profiles along (0, 0, L) through the (0, 0, 8 + 2q) reflection at 2 K. Solid lines are the fits to the data using Gaussian functions. (b) X￾ray energy dependence of the 2q peak at 4.8 T. (c) Magnetic-field depend…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Color online) (a) Temperature dependence of the (2, 0, 8 − q) and (0, 0, 8 + q) intensities for the π–σ ′ channel at 6 T. The data for (0, 0, 8 + q) are multiplied by 0.27. (b) Tempera￾ture dependence of the (−2, 0, 8 − q) intensity for π–σ ′ at 6 T. (c) Temperature d…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Color online) Illustrations of the magnetic structures of EuRhGe3 at 2 K for the first five unit cells. The numbers denote the layer index. (a) Helical magnetic structure at zero field with q = (0, 0, 0.81). The magnetic moments rotate by a constant turn angle of 145.…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Helical-to-Fan Transitions under Magnetic Fields in the Noncentrosymmetric Tetragonal Magnet EuRhGe$_3$

    Introduction Emergence of nontrivial magnetic structures, such as skyrmion lattices and chiral soliton lattices composed of noncollinear or noncoplanar spiral structures, has stim- ulated extensive studies. 1–8) An important aspect in understanding these states is the relationship between crystallographic symmetry and the microscopic mech- anism responsib...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    The scattering geometry is shown in the Appendix

    Experiment A single crystal of EuRhGe 3 was grown by the In- flux method.34) Resonant X-ray diffraction (RXD) exper- iments were performed at BL-3A of the Photon Factory, KEK, Japan. The scattering geometry is shown in the Appendix. Measurements were performed at X-ray ener- gies around the Eu L2 absorption edge. A plate-shaped sample with a mirror-polished...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Results and Analysis 3.1 Incommensurate magnetic order at zero field Figures 2(a) and 2(b) show L scans through the (0, 0, 8 +q) and (0 , 0, 10 − q) magnetic reflections, respec- tively, illustrating the evolution of the magnetic Bragg peaks below TN with decreasing temperature. These scans clearly demonstrate that the magnetic order at zero field in phase I...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Discussion 4.1 Phases II and III The zero-field helical magnetic structure at the low- est temperature is shown in Fig. 8(a). The magnetic mo- ments rotate within the ab plane with equal amplitudes of ma and mb, propagating along the c axis with an incom- mensurate wave vector q = (0 , 0, 0.809). The turn angle between the moments in adjacent Eu layers is ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Summary We have investigated the magnetic structure of the noncentrosymmetric helimagnet EuRhGe 3 by resonant X-ray diffraction in magnetic fields. The zero-field or- dered state is an equal-amplitude planar helix in which the magnetic moments lie in the ab plane and propagate along the c axis with an incommensurate wave vector q = (0, 0, 0.809). When a magn...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Yamasaki, D

    Y. Yamasaki, D. Morikawa, T. Honda, H. Nakao, Y. Mu- rakami, N. Kanazawa, M. Kawasaki, T. Arima, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. B 92, 220421 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Togawa, A

    Y. Togawa, A. S. Ovchinnikov, and J. i. Kishine, J. Phys. So c. 9 J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. FULL P APERS Jpn. 92, 081006 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Togawa, T

    Y. Togawa, T. Koyama, K. Takayanagi, S. Mori, Y. Kousaka, J. Akimitsu, S. Nishihara, K. Inoue, A. S. Ovchinnikov, and J. Kishine, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 107202 (2012)

    2012

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Honda, Y

    T. Honda, Y. Yamasaki, H. Nakao, Y. Murakami, T. Ogura, Y. Kousaka, and J. Akimitsu, Sci. Rep. 10, 18596 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    M¨ uhlbauer, B

    S. M¨ uhlbauer, B. Binz, F. Jonietz, C. Pfleiderer, A. Rosch , A. Neubauer, R. Georgii, and P. B¨ oni, Science 323, 915 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    X. Z. Yu, Y. Onose, N. Kanazawa, J. H. Park, J. H. Han, Y. Matsui, N. Nagaosa, and Y. Tokura, Nature 465, 901 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    Hayami and Y

    S. Hayami and Y. Motome, Phys. Rev. B 103, 024439 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    S. Seki, X. Z. Yu, S. Ishiwata, and Y. Tokura, Science 336, 198 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    K´ ezsm´ arki, S

    I. K´ ezsm´ arki, S. Bord´ acs, P. Milde, E. Neuber, L. M. Eng , J. S. White, H. M. Rønnow, C. D. Dewhurst, M. Mochizuki, K. Yanai, H. Nakamura, D. Ehlers, V. Tsurkan, and A. Loidl, Nat. Mater. 14, 1116 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    A. N. Bogdanov and D. A. Yablonskii, Sov. Phys. JETP 68, 101 (1989)

    1989

  8. [16]

    Bogdanov and A

    A. Bogdanov and A. Hubert, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 138, 255 (1994)

    1994

  9. [17]

    Hayami, R

    S. Hayami, R. Ozawa, and Y. Motome, Phys. Rev. B 95, 224424 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Tabata, T

    C. Tabata, T. Matsumura, H. Nakao, S. Michimura, M. Kak- ihana, T. Inami, K. Kaneko, M. Hedo, T. Nakama, and Y. ¯Onuki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 093704 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Hayami, J

    S. Hayami, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 91, 023705 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Yambe and S

    R. Yambe and S. Hayami, Phys. Rev. B 106, 174437 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Hayami, Phys

    S. Hayami, Phys. Rev. B 109, 054422 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Hayami and K

    S. Hayami and K. Okigami, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 95, 034706 (2026)

    2026

  15. [23]

    Kaneko, M

    K. Kaneko, M. D. Frontzek, M. Matsuda, A. Nakao, K. Mu- nakata, T. Ohhara, M. Kakihana, Y. Haga, M. Hedo, T. Nakama, and Y. ¯Onuki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 013702 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    N. D. Khanh, T. Nakajima, X. Yu, S. Gao, K. Shibata, M. Hirschberger, Y. Yamasaki, H. Sagayama, H. Nakao, L. Peng, K. Nakajima, R. Takagi, T. Arima, Y. Tokura, and S. Seki, Nat. Nanotechnol. 15, 444 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Matsumura, C

    T. Matsumura, C. Tabata, K. Kaneko, H. Nakao, M. Kaki- hana, M. Hedo, T. Nakama, and Y. ¯Onuki, Phys. Rev. B 109, 174437 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Matsumura, K

    T. Matsumura, K. Kurauchi, M. Tsukagoshi, N. Higa, H. Nakao, M. Kakihana, M. Hedo, T. Nakama, and Y. ¯Onuki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 93, 074705 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Singh, Y

    D. Singh, Y. Fujishiro, S. Hayami, S. H. Moody, T. Nomoto, P. R. Baral, V. Ukleev, R. Cubitt, N. J. Steinke, D. J. Gawryluk, E. Pomjakushina, Y. ¯Onuki, R. Arita, Y. Tokura, N. Kanazawa, and J. S. White, Nat. Commun. 14, 8050 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Kurumaji, T

    T. Kurumaji, T. Nakajima, M. Hirschberger, A. Kikkawa, Y. Yamasaki, H. Sagayama, H. Nakao, Y. Taguchi, T. Arima, and Y. Tokura, Science 365, 914 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Hirschberger, T

    M. Hirschberger, T. Nakajima, S. Gao, L. Peng, A. Kikkawa , T. Kurumaji, M. Kriener, Y. Yamasaki, H. Sagayama, H. Nakao, K. Ohishi, K. Kakurai, Y. Taguchi, X. Yu, T. Arima, and Y. Tokura, Nat. Commun. 10, 5831 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Y. Arai, K. Nakayama, A. Honma, S. Souma, D. Shiga, H. Ku- migashira, T. Takahashi, K. Segawa, and T. Sato, Nat. Com- mun. 17, 3162 (2026)

    2026

  23. [31]

    N. D. Khanh, T. Nakajima, S. Hayami, S. Gao, Y. Yamasaki, H. Sagayama, H. Nakao, R. Takagi, Y. Motome, Y. Tokura, T. h. Arima, and S. Seki, Adv. Sci. 9, 2105452 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Takagi, N

    R. Takagi, N. Matsuyama, V. Ukleev, L. Yu, J. S. White, S. Francoual, J. R. L. Mardegan, S. Hayami, H. Saito, K. Kaneko, K. Ohishi, Y. ¯Onuki, T. H. Arima, Y. Tokura, T. Nakajima, and S. Seki, Nat. Commun. 13, 1472 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    G. D. A. W ood, D. D. Khalyavin, D. A. Mayoh, J. Bouaziz, A. E. Hall, S. J. R. Holt, F. Orlandi, P. Manuel, S. Bl¨ ugel, J.B. Staunton, O. A. Petrenko, M. R. Lees, and G. Balakrishnan, Phys. Rev. B 107, L180402 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Bouaziz, E

    J. Bouaziz, E. Mendive-Tapia, S. Bl¨ ugel, and J. B. Staun ton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 157206 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Sarkar, R

    S. Sarkar, R. Pathak, A. Mukherjee, A. Delin, O. Eriksson , and V. Borisov, Phys. Rev. B 112, 144414 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Matsumura, M

    T. Matsumura, M. Tsukagoshi, Y. Ueda, N. Higa, A. Nakao, K. Kaneko, M. Kakihana, M. Hedo, T. Nakama, and Y. ¯Onuki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 91, 073703 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Nomoto, T

    T. Nomoto, T. Koretsune, and R. Arita, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 117204 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Bednarchuk, A

    O. Bednarchuk, A. G¸ agor, and D. Kaczorowski, J. Alloys Compd. 622, 432 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Maurya, P

    A. Maurya, P. Bonville, R. Kulkami, A. Thamizhavel, and S. K. Dhar, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 401, 823 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Kakihana, H

    M. Kakihana, H. Akamine, K. Tomori, K. Nishimura, A. Teruya, A. Nakamura, F. Honda, D. Aoki, M. Nakashima, Y. Amako, K. Matsubayashi, Y. Uwatoko, T. Takeuchi, T. Kida, M. Hagiwara, Y. Haga, E. Yamamoto, H. Harima, M. Hedo, T. Nakama, and Y. ¯Onuki, J. Alloys and Compounds 694,...

    2017

  33. [41]

    Utsumi, D

    Y. Utsumi, D. Kasinathan, P. Swatek, O. Bednarchuk, D. Kaczorowski, J. M. Ablett, and J.-P. Rueff, Phys. Rev. B 97, 115155 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Nagamiya, K

    T. Nagamiya, K. Nagata, and Y. Kitano, Prog. Theor. Phys. 27, 1253 (1962)

    1962

  35. [43]

    Kurauchi, T

    K. Kurauchi, T. Matsumura, M. Tsukagoshi, N. Higa, M. Kak - ihana, M. Hedo, T. Nakama, and Y. ¯Onuki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 92, 083701 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Utsumi, I

    Y. Utsumi, I. Batisti´ c, V. Bal´ edent, S. R. Shieh, N. S. Dhami, O. Bednarchuk, D. Kaczorowski, J. M. Ablett, and J. P. Rueff, Electron. Struct. 3, 034002 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    N. S. Dhami, V. Bal´ edent, I. Batisti´ c, O. Bednarchuk, D. Kac- zorowski, J. P. Iti´ e, S. R. Shieh, C. M. N. Kumar, and Y. Ut- sumi, High Pressure Research 44, 467 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Takeuchi, T

    T. Takeuchi, T. Tahara, T. Kida, Y. Narumi, M. Hagiwara, K. Kindo, W. Iha, Y. Ashitomi, T. Yara, M. Nakashima, Y. Amako, M. Hedo, T. Nakama, and Y. ¯Onuki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 90, 034709 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 44, 1272 (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    S. W. Lovesey and S. P. Collins, X-ray Scattering and Absorp- tion by Magnetic Materials (Oxford, New York, 1996). 10

    1996

  41. [49]

    D. C. Johnston, Phys. Rev. B 99, 214438 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    D. C. Johnston, Phys. Rev. B 96, 104405 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    Matsumura, Y

    T. Matsumura, Y. Kita, K. Kubo, Y. Yoshikawa, S. Michimura, T. Inami, Y. Kousaka, K. Inoue, and S. Ohara, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 86, 124702 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    Okumura, Y

    S. Okumura, Y. Kato, and Y. Motome, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 87, 033708 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    J. A. Blanco, D. Gignoux, and D. Schmitt, Phys. Rev. B 43, 13145 (1991)

    1991

  46. [100]

    1, where the phase nomenclature follows Ref

    direction at low temperatures, several field-induced phase transitions occur before the fully polarized state is reached.33) The crystal structure and the magnetic phase diagram for H ‖ [100] is shown in Fig. 1, where the phase nomenclature follows Ref. 33. The fact that the I–...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.