High-field NMR study of field-induced states in Pb(TiO)Cu$_4$(PO$_4$)$_4$

K. Kimura; K. Kindo; K. Matsui; T. Kanda; T. Kimura; Y. Ihara; Y. Kato; Y. Kohama; Y. Motome

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 29 references

High-field NMR study of field-induced states in Pb(TiO)Cu$_4$(PO$_4$)$_4$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that 31P NMR in pulsed fields up to 32.2 T reveals a successive magnetic transition in Pb(TiO)Cu4(PO4)4 above 29 T along [001], and that the spectrum at 32.2 T matches the internal fields expected for the theoretically…

desk verdict Genuinely new pulsed-field NMR data, but the phase III assignment rests on an internally inconsistent hyperfine calibration. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.12759 v1 pith:2OHMK5M5 submitted 2025-08-18 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Y. Ihara , T. Kanda , Y. Kato , Y. Motome , K. Matsui , K. Kindo , Y. Kohama , T. Kimura

show 1 more author

K. Kimura

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords 31PNMRpulsedhighmagneticfieldssquarecupolaantiferromagnetquadrupoleorderfield-inducedphaseIIIclustermean-fieldtheorymetamagnetictransitionhyperfinecouplingconstants

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

In the square cupola antiferromagnet Pb(TiO)Cu4(PO4)4, the paper uses 31P NMR in pulsed magnetic fields up to 32.2 T to track how the ordered copper moments rearrange as the field grows. It finds a new spectral splitting above 29 T applied along [001] that signals a successive magnetic transition, and it shows that the measured spectrum at 32.2 T matches the internal fields expected for the theoretically predicted phase III. If correct, this identifies the previously unresolved high-field phase and its magnetic structure.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on 31P NMR spectroscopy under flat-top pulsed magnetic fields, which keeps the field constant long enough to record frequency-swept spectra up to 32.2 T. The internal field at each of the eight phosphorus sites is computed as the sum of hyperfine fields from four neighboring Cu2+ moments, using site-dependent coupling constants A1 = 185, A2 = 136, and A3 = A4 = 157 mT/µB extracted from the low-field antiferromagnetic state, plus the direct dipole fields. These simulated internal fields are compared with measured peak positions for fields along [100] and [001], and the match above 29 T is used to identify phase III.

What would settle it

A direct neutron or x-ray diffraction measurement of the magnetic structure above 29 T along [001] would settle whether the spin reorientation predicted for phase III actually occurs; the proposed phase III structure predicts two distinct internal fields at phosphorus sites, so an NMR measurement that fully accounts for the anisotropic hyperfine coupling could also test whether the 25% correction applied to the simulated spectrum hides a different magnetic structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that above 29 T, applied along the c-axis [001], the 31P NMR spectrum of Pb(TiO)Cu4(PO4)4 changes from a broad single shape into a double-peak structure, evidencing successive magnetic transitions in a field range inaccessible to superconducting magnets. Simulating the internal fields at the phosphorus sites from the candidate magnetic structures, the authors find that the observed double-peak spectrum at 32.2 T is consistent with the phase III spin configuration obtained from classical mean-field theory, leading to the proposal that phase III is stabilized above 29 T. This assignment resolves the dielectric anomaly at 26 T that had no clear magnetization counterpart, and it provides a microscopic picture of the field-induced spin reorientation.

Load-bearing premise

The identification of phase III relies on hyperfine coupling constants derived assuming A3 = A4, taking the copper moment components Mx = 0.48 µB and Mz = 0.64 µB from neutron diffraction, and neglecting the small My component and off-diagonal anisotropic hyperfine terms; if these site-dependent couplings or the neglected anisotropy are wrong, the simulated internal fields and the phase assignment would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Above 29 T along [001], the double-peak NMR spectrum is a marker of a successive magnetic transition, so future magnetization and electric polarization measurements can be re-examined in that field range.
The proposed phase III spin reorientation accounts for the 26 T dielectric anomaly that had no clear magnetization signature, linking a purely electric response to a magnetic transition.
The site-dependent hyperfine coupling constants derived here (A1 = 185, A2 = 136, A3 = A4 = 157 mT/µB) allow the local spin arrangement to be inferred from NMR in both low-field and field-induced states.
The combination of flat-top pulsed fields with fast frequency-skipping NMR makes microscopic magnetic-structure studies possible well beyond the reach of superconducting magnets, up to at least 32 T.

Reading between the lines

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

The 25% uniform correction applied to the simulated internal field suggests the anisotropic part of the hyperfine coupling is not negligible; a full tensor determination, for example from measurements at intermediate orientations, could replace this correction and test the phase III assignment more strictly.
If magnetostriction suppresses the chiral rotation angle of the cupola clusters in high fields, as the authors speculate, then high-field x-ray diffraction might detect a lattice deformation accompanying the 29 T transition.
The same pulsed-field NMR approach could be applied to the isostructural Ba and Sr compounds, where the phase III window may shift and provide a systematic test of the mean-field prediction.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, the pulsed-field 31P NMR data above 29 T are genuinely new, and the double-peak splitting at Bc2 is the first microscopic evidence of the transition that previously showed up only as a dielectric anomaly near 26 T. That part is solid and worth publishing. Second, the assignment to phase III is not as clean as the paper claims. The low-field hyperfine calibration in Section III B is internally inconsistent: the reported A1 = 185, A2 = 136, A3 = A4 = 157 mT/µB, together with Mx = 0.48 µB, Mz = 0.64 µB and My ≈ 0, give Bz = (A1 - A2) Mz ≈ 31 mT, not the measured 48 mT after dipole subtraction. Re-solving the same equations with Ap = 635 mT/µB and A3 = A4 yields A1 ≈ 197, A2 ≈ 122, A3 = A4 ≈ 158 mT/µB, and My ≈ 0.02 µB. That My is small, but it shifts Bx - By by roughly Ap·My ≈ 13 mT, so neglecting it is not harmless. The paper never reports this discrepancy, and later rescales the computed phase-III internal fields by 25% to make the comparison work. The agreement at 32.2 T in Fig. 6(c) is therefore a plausibility argument, not a confirmation. The experimental method is state of the art, the spectra are shown in full, and the H // [100] analysis using cluster mean-field theory is reasonable. The observation of successive transitions is robust. But the phase assignment is model-dependent: the mean-field parameters are tuned to the magnetization curve, and the alternative scenario of a field-induced reduction of the chiral angle is acknowledged but not tested. A high-field neutron or x-ray diffraction experiment would settle it. This paper deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject. The new data warrant publication, but the hyperfine tensor needs to be re-derived consistently and the 25% rescaling must be justified or removed before the phase III identification becomes convincing. I would send it to review with a request for major revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports 31P NMR measurements in flat-top pulsed magnetic fields up to 32.2 T on the square cupola antiferromagnet Pb(TiO)Cu4(PO4)4, extending the field range accessible to NMR studies of this material. For H along the [100] and [001] directions, the authors observe field-induced changes in the NMR spectra and identify a double-peak structure emerging above about 29 T for H || [001], which they attribute to a magnetic transition into a phase previously denoted phase III. They calibrate site-dependent 31P hyperfine couplings from the low-field antiferromagnetic state, simulate the internal fields at the P sites using cluster mean-field and classical mean-field models, and compare the simulated spectra with the high-field NMR data. The paper proposes that phase III is stabilized above 29 T and discusses the possible role of magnetostriction in suppressing the chiral rotation of the cupola clusters.

Significance. If the phase assignment is correct, the paper provides the first microscopic NMR evidence for the high-field phase III in this magnetoelectric square cupola compound, connecting a previously unexplained dielectric anomaly at 26 T with a magnetic transition. The experimental achievement is substantial: high-resolution NMR spectra in flat-top pulsed fields up to 32.2 T, with a consistent frequency-sweep technique, are not routine. The paper also ships a quantitative framework linking hyperfine couplings, dipole fields, and mean-field magnetic structures. However, the central phase III claim rests on a low-field calibration of hyperfine constants that is internally inconsistent with the measured internal-field components, and on a 25% uniform rescaling of the simulated internal fields. Until these points are addressed, the comparison in Fig. 6(c) cannot be regarded as a clean confirmation of the phase III structure.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III B] The hyperfine constants A1 = 185, A2 = 136, and A3 = A4 = 157 mT/µB quoted in Sec. III B do not reproduce the reported hyperfine field component Bz = 48 mT. Using the same equations and the stated Mx = 0.48 µB, Mz = 0.64 µB, and My = 0, one obtains Bx = 13.4 mT and By = -10.1 mT (consistent), but Bz = (A1 - A2 - A3 + A4)Mz = (A1 - A2)Mz = 31.4 mT, which is about 35% smaller than the measured 48 mT. This internal inconsistency in the calibration is load-bearing because these A_i are used for all subsequent simulations of the high-field internal fields. The authors should re-derive the A_i by solving the full set of equations, including the small My term, and should report the resulting values and the residuals for all three components.
[Sec. IV, Fig. 6(c)] The comparison between the simulated and experimental 31P-NMR spectrum at 32.2 T is made after uniformly shifting the whole simulated spectrum by 25% to 'compensate the anisotropy of hyperfine coupling constants.' This is a large ad hoc rescaling: the measured anisotropy of Ap between the [100] and [001] directions is about 12%, roughly half of the applied shift. The paper does not provide a quantitative derivation of the 25% correction from the angle-dependent hyperfine coupling. Since the phase III assignment rests on the agreement of only two internal-field branches after this rescaling, the authors should either justify the shift with a concrete model or show the comparison without it, so that the level of agreement is transparent.
[Sec. IV, footnote [26]] The classical mean-field calculation that produces the phase III magnetic structure uses model parameters that were 'slightly tuned to better reproduce the magnetization curve' (footnote [26]), specifically D = 0.8, θ = 100°, and φ = 2°. The paper does not state which values of these parameters are used for the other phases, nor how sensitive the predicted Bint values are to these adjustments. Because the identification of phase III and the resulting internal-field branches depend on this tuned model, the authors should provide a small parameter-sweep or robustness test showing that the double-peak assignment is not an artifact of the tuning.

minor comments (4)

[Global] The manuscript contains numerous typographical errors, including 'antiferromganetic' (Introduction), 'Metoropolitan' (affiliation), 'solides' (Ref. [1]), 'expacsion' (Ref. [5]), 'qupola' (Ref. [12]), 'fo' (Ref. [5]), 'dn' (Ref. [19]), 'Tha' (footnote [26]), and 'intneisty' (Fig. 3 caption). These should be corrected.
[Sec. IV, Fig. 6(c)] The caption of Fig. 6(c) states that the whole spectrum was uniformly shifted by 25% but does not specify the direction or the absolute value of the shift. Please state whether the shift is in Bint or frequency and in which direction, and give the magnitude in mT.
[Sec. III A] The statement that the coupling constants for the [100] and [001] directions are 662 mT/µB and 564 mT/µB, while the values after dipole subtraction are 674 and 557 mT/µB, could be made clearer: it is not immediately obvious why the dipole subtraction increases the [100] value and decreases the [001] value. A brief parenthetical explanation would help.
[Sec. III B] The local coordinate definitions for M1 in Fig. 3(c) (x, y, z parallel to [010], [‾100], and [001], respectively) are mentioned in the text but are not reproduced in the figure caption. Adding them to the caption would make the equations easier to follow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the high-field phase-III assignment is a model comparison against new NMR data, not a fit to those data.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The hyperfine couplings A1...A4 are obtained from paramagnetic Knight shifts and from the low-field AFM internal-field components (Secs. III A and III B), and the phase-III Bint values are computed from a classical mean-field magnetic structure whose parameters are stated in footnote [26] and were tuned to the magnetization curve, not to the 31P NMR spectra (Sec. IV). The comparison at 32.2 T therefore tests the model against new NMR data. The 25% uniform shift applied in Fig. 6(c) is an acknowledged ad hoc correction for the absolute scale; it does not determine the double-peak splitting, which is the qualitative evidence for phase III. Self-citations to Refs. [16], [18], [19], and [27] supply the model and the phase-III label, but they are not invoked as a forced-uniqueness theorem; the paper explicitly frames the result as a proposal, saying it 'invokes a possibility that the phase III is actually stabilized'. The reported hyperfine constants do not reproduce the measured Bz component of the low-field internal field (with A3 = A4 and Mx = 0.48, Mz = 0.64, Bz = (A1-A2)Mz is about 31 mT, not the quoted 48 mT), but this is an internal calibration inconsistency and a correctness risk, not a circular reduction: the high-field prediction is not equivalent to the low-field fit by construction. Hence no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on parameters fitted to earlier data and modeling assumptions carried over from prior work by the same groups.

free parameters (4)

A1, A2, A3, A4 hyperfine coupling constants = A1 = 185 mT/µB, A2 = 136 mT/µB, A3 = A4 = 157 mT/µB
Fitted to low-field AFM NMR peak splittings using the quadrupolar spin structure from neutron diffraction, with assumptions A3 = A4 and A1 > A3 > A2 (Sec. III B).
Mean-field model parameters = D = 0.8, theta = 100°, phi = 2°
Taken from Ref. [26], where they were slightly tuned to reproduce the magnetization curve; used to obtain the phase III structure (Sec. IV, footnote [26]).
Uniform rescaling of simulated internal fields = 25% reduction
The simulated Bint in phase III overestimated the experimental average by about 25%, corrected by a uniform shift to compare spectra (Sec. IV, Fig. 6 caption).
Simulated NMR linewidth = 10 mT
Introduced when generating the simulated double-peak spectrum at 32.2 T (Sec. IV, Fig. 6 caption).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The low-field magnetic structure is the quadrupolar-type spin configuration from neutron diffraction (P4'212'), used to extract A_i.
Sec. III B relies on this structure to decompose hyperfine fields at P sites.
domain assumption The hyperfine coupling is dominated by the isotropic term; anisotropic/off-diagonal components are neglected.
Sec. III A states the anisotropic term originates from small p-electron population and is neglected; Sec. IV attributes discrepancies to this neglect.
domain assumption The sample remains in the AFM ordered state during the high-field pulse.
Sec. III C infers this from magnetocaloric-effect measurements in Sr analog (Ref. [27]); sample temperature was not monitored.
domain assumption The dipole field from Cu moments within 100 Å is sufficient to calculate the internal field.
Used in Sec. III B and Sec. IV for dipole subtraction; no convergence test shown.
domain assumption Classical and cluster mean-field theories capture the relevant spin model.
Sec. IV uses CMF and MF with parameters from prior work [16, 19, 26] to generate candidate magnetic structures.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-field NMR study of field-induced states in Pb(TiO)Cu$_4$(PO$_4$)$_4$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2OHMK5M5

@misc{pith2026250812759,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-field NMR study of field-induced states in Pb(TiO)Cu$_4$(PO$_4$)$_4$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2OHMK5M5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.12759}
}

abstract

The square cupola antiferromagnet Pb(TiO)Cu$_4$(PO$_4$)$_4$ exhibits the intriguing magnetoelectric responses arising from the consecutive change in the magnetic quadrupolar-type configuration of magnetic moments under external magnetic fields higher than 15 T. To clarify the high-field magnetic structures in Pb(TiO)Cu$_4$(PO$_4$)$_4$, an NMR measurement was performed in pulsed fields up to 32.2 T significantly extending the field range accessible by superconducting magnets. The double-peak structure of NMR spectra emerging above 29 T applied along the [001] direction evidences the successive magnetic transitions. The field dependence of NMR spectra was analyzed on the basis of cluster mean-field theory, which allows us to propose possible magnetic structures for the high-field magnetic states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.12759 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Field-sweep NMR spectra around [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The horizontal axis of Fig. 4 is the frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Internal field at P site calculated for the magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Field dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[1]

theory [18], which consistently explains the experi- mentally measured magnetic and electric properties of A(TiO)Cu4(PO4)4

direction, NMR peak positions in LF AFM and phase II are consistently explained, while those above 29 T deviate from the theoretical expectation, suggesting the appearance of phase III. theory [18], which consistently explains the experi- mentally measured magnetic and electric properties of A(TiO)Cu4(PO4)4. The internal field at P sites under H ∥ [100] i...

work page
[26]

Kimura, M

K. Kimura, M. Sera, and T. Kimura, A2+ cation control of chiral domain formation in A(TiO)Cu4(PO4)4 (A = Ba, Sr), Inorg. Chem. 55, 1002-1004 (2016)

2016
[2]

N. A. Spaldin, and R. Ramesh, Advances in magneto- electric multiferroics, Nat. Mater. 18, 203-212 (2019)

2019
[3]

Kuramoto, Electronic higher multipoles in solides, Prog

Y. Kuramoto, Electronic higher multipoles in solides, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 176, 77 (2008)

2008
[4]

N. A. Spaldin, M.=Fechner, E. Bousquet, A. Balatsky, and L. Nordstr¨ om, Monopole-based formalism for the diagonal magnetoelectric response. Phys. Rev. B 88, 094429 (2013)

2013
[5]

N. A. Spaldin, M. Fiebig, and M. Mostovoy, The toroidal moment in condensed-matter physics and its relation to the magnetoelectric effect, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 20, 434203 (2008)

2008
[6]

V. J. Folen, G. T. Rado, and E. W. Stalder, Anisotropy of the magnetoelectric effect in Cr 2O3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 6, 607 (1961)

1961
[7]

Suguki, T

M.-T. Suguki, T. Nomoto, R. Arita, Y. Yanagi, S. Hayami, and H. Kusunose, Multipole expacsion fo mag- netic structures: A generation scheme for a symmetry- adapted orthonormal basis set in the crystallographic point group. Phys. Rev. B 99, 174407 (2019)

2019

Show all 29 references

[8]

Kimura, T

T. Kimura, T. Goto, H. Shintani, K. Ishizaka, T. Arima, and Y. Tokura, Magnetic control of ferroelectric polar- ization, Nature (London) 426, 55-58 (2003)

2003
[9]

Arima, D

T. Arima, D. Higashiyama, Y. Kaneko, J. P. He, T. Goto, S. Miyasaka, T. Kimura, K. Oikawa, T. Kamiyama, R. Kumai, and Y. Tokura, Structural and magnetoelec- tric properties of Ga 2−xFexO3 single crystals grown by a floating-zone method, Phys. Rev. B 70, 064426 (2004)

2004
[10]

Kimura, M

K. Kimura, M. Toyoda, P. Babkevich, K. Yamauchi, M. Sera, H. M. Rønnow, and T. Kimura, A- cation control of magnetoelectric quadrupole order in A(TiO)Cu4(PO4)4 (A = Ba, Sr, and Pb), Phys. Rev. B 97, 134418 (2018)

2018
[11]

Kimura, P

K. Kimura, P. Babkevich, M. Sera, M. Toyoda, K. Ya- mauchi, G. S. Tucker, J. Martius, T. Fennell, P. Manuel, D. D. Khylyavin, R. D. Johnson, T. Nakano, Y. Nozoe, H. M. Rønnow, and T. Kimura, Magnetodielectric detec- tion of magnetic quadrupole order in Ba(TiO)Cu4(PO4)4 with Cu...

2016
[12]

S. S. Islam, K. M. Ranjith, M. Baenitz, Y. Skourski, A. A. Tsirlin, and R. Nath, Frustration of square qupola in Sr(TiO)Cu4(PO4)4, Phys. Rev. B 97, 174432 (2018)

2018
[13]

Babkevich, L

P. Babkevich, L. Testa, K. Kimura, T. Kimura, G. S. Tucker, B. Roessli, and H. M. Rønnow, Mag- netic structure of Ba(TiO)Cu4(PO4)4probed using speri- cal neutron polarimetry, Phys. Rev. B96, 214436 (2017)

2017
[14]

R¨ asta, I

R. R¨ asta, I. Heinmaa, K. Kimura, T. Kimura, and R. Stern, Magnetic structure of the square cupola com- pound Ba(TiO)Cu 4(PO4)4, Phys. Rev. B 101, 054417 (2020)

2020
[15]

Kumar, A

V. Kumar, A. Shahee, S. Kundu, M. Baenitz, A. V. Mahajan, The spin-1/2 coupled tetramer system Ba(TiO)Cu4(PO4)4 probed by magnetization, specific heat and 31P NMR, J. Mag. Mag. Mater. 492, 165600 (2019)

2019
[16]

Kimura, Y

K. Kimura, Y. Kato, K. Yamauchi, A. Miyake, M. Toku- naga, A. Matsuo, K. Kindo, M. Akaki, M. Hagiwara, S. Kimura, M. Toyoda, Y. Motome, and T. Kimura, Mag- netic structural unit with convex geometry: A building block hosting an exchange-striction-driven magnetoelec- tric coupl...

2018
[17]

The modification in the spectral shape above Bc1 6 0 2 4 6 8 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 NMR intensity offset by� 0H (arb

and 26.3 T, the peak separation is reduced and the broad spectra without clearly resolved peaks were ob- served. The modification in the spectral shape above Bc1 6 0 2 4 6 8 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 NMR intensity offset by� 0H (arb. units) �f (MHz) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 || [100]H(a) ...
[18]

Hayami, M

S. Hayami, M. Yatsushiro, Y. Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Classification of atomic-scale multipoles under crystallo- graphic point groups and application to linear response tensores, Phys. Rev. B 98, 165110 (2018)

2018
[19]

Kimura, S

K. Kimura, S. Kimura, and T. Kimura, Magneto- electric behaviors in magnetic-field-induced phases of Pb(TiO)Cu4(PO4)4, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 093707 (2019)

2019
[20]

Y. Kato, K. Kimura, A. Miyake, M. Tokunaga, A. Mat- suo, K. Kindo, M. Akaki, M. Hagiwara, M. Sera, T. Kimura, and Y. Motome, Magnetoelectric behavior from S = 1/2 asymmetric square cupolas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 107601 (2017)

2017
[21]

Y. Kato, K. Kimura, A. Miyake, M. Tokunaga, A. Mat- suo, K. Kindo, M. Akaki, M. Hagiwara, S. Kimura, T. Kimura, and Y. Motome, Magnetoelectric behav- 9 ior from cluster multipoles in square cupolas: study of Sr(TiO)Cu 4(PO4)4 in comparison with Ba dn Pb isostructurals, Phys. R...

2019
[22]

Miyake, H

A. Miyake, H. Mitamura, S. Kawachi, K. Kimura, T. Kimura, T. Kihara, M. Tachibana, and M. Toku- naga, Capacitive detection of magnetostriction, dielectric constant, and magneto-caloric effects in pulsed magnetic fields, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 91, 105103 (2020)

2020
[23]

Ihara, K

Y. Ihara, K. Hayashi, T. Kanda, K. Matsui, K. Kindo, and Y. Kohama, Nuclear magnetic resonance measure- ments in dynamically controlled field pulse, Rev. Sci. In- strum. 92, 114709 (2021)

2021
[24]

K¨ uhne and Y

H. K¨ uhne and Y. Ihara, Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy in pulsed magnetic fields, Contemporary Physics 65, 40 (2024)

2024
[25]

Kohama, T

Y. Kohama, T. Nomura, S. Zherlitsyn, and Y. Ihara, Time-resolved measurements in pulsed magnetic fields, J. Appl. Phys. 132, 070903 (2022)

2022
[27]

Kohama and K

Y. Kohama and K. Kindo, Generation of flat-top pulsed magnetic fields with feedback control approach, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 86, 104701 (2015)

2015
[28]

Tha parameters used for the MF theory are D = 0.8,θ = 100◦, andϕ = 2◦ in the Hamiltonian identical to that for the CMF theory [19]
[29]

Nomura, Y

T. Nomura, Y. Kato, Y. Motome, A. Miyake, M. Toku- naga, Y. Kohama, S. Zherlitsyn, J. Wosnitza, S. Kimura, T. Katsuyoshi, T. Kimura, and K. Kimura, Phys. Rev. B 108, 054434 (2023)

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

theory [18], which consistently explains the experi- mentally measured magnetic and electric properties of A(TiO)Cu4(PO4)4

direction, NMR peak positions in LF AFM and phase II are consistently explained, while those above 29 T deviate from the theoretical expectation, suggesting the appearance of phase III. theory [18], which consistently explains the experi- mentally measured magnetic and electric properties of A(TiO)Cu4(PO4)4. The internal field at P sites under H ∥ [100] i...

work page

[2] [26]

Kimura, M

K. Kimura, M. Sera, and T. Kimura, A2+ cation control of chiral domain formation in A(TiO)Cu4(PO4)4 (A = Ba, Sr), Inorg. Chem. 55, 1002-1004 (2016)

2016

[3] [2]

N. A. Spaldin, and R. Ramesh, Advances in magneto- electric multiferroics, Nat. Mater. 18, 203-212 (2019)

2019

[4] [3]

Kuramoto, Electronic higher multipoles in solides, Prog

Y. Kuramoto, Electronic higher multipoles in solides, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 176, 77 (2008)

2008

[5] [4]

N. A. Spaldin, M.=Fechner, E. Bousquet, A. Balatsky, and L. Nordstr¨ om, Monopole-based formalism for the diagonal magnetoelectric response. Phys. Rev. B 88, 094429 (2013)

2013

[6] [5]

N. A. Spaldin, M. Fiebig, and M. Mostovoy, The toroidal moment in condensed-matter physics and its relation to the magnetoelectric effect, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 20, 434203 (2008)

2008

[7] [6]

V. J. Folen, G. T. Rado, and E. W. Stalder, Anisotropy of the magnetoelectric effect in Cr 2O3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 6, 607 (1961)

1961

[8] [7]

Suguki, T

M.-T. Suguki, T. Nomoto, R. Arita, Y. Yanagi, S. Hayami, and H. Kusunose, Multipole expacsion fo mag- netic structures: A generation scheme for a symmetry- adapted orthonormal basis set in the crystallographic point group. Phys. Rev. B 99, 174407 (2019)

2019