Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 69 references

Negative thermal expansion, lattice dynamics, and complex magnetism in TbFeO$_3$

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TbFeO3 expands slightly as it cools from 300 K to 5 K, and its Raman spectrum shows a new spin-coupled mode near 206 cm^-1 below ~175 K.

desk verdict A useful, honest multi-probe temperature map of TbFeO3, whose most novel claim—negative thermal expansion—rests on a 0.017% volume change that needs a real error budget before it can be believed. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00469 v1 pith:CVDXXIVZ submitted 2026-08-01 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Shubham Farswan , Reshma Kumawat , Dipankar Sarkar , Deeksha Singh , Md. Atif Hasan , Devajyoti Mukherjee , Kaushik Sen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords TbFeO3orthoferritenegativethermalexpansionspin-phononcouplingtwo-magnonRamanscatteringantiferromagnetismmixedvalenceKlemensanharmonicmodel
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

This paper argues that TbFeO3, a rare-earth orthoferrite, shows a small but genuine negative thermal expansion: its crystal lattice expands as it is cooled from 300 K to 5 K, even though the crystal structure never changes. The same study ties this lattice behavior to magnetism: several Raman phonon modes deviate from the standard anharmonic decay model, two modes switch from Gaussian to mixed line shapes, and a new broad Raman mode appears below about 175 K with order-parameter-like growth. The authors also identify two-magnon excitations from the iron sublattice, matching linear spin-wave calculations, and find that these magnetic excitations stay nearly constant while the lattice anomalies develop. If correct, the work makes TbFeO3 a concrete example of coupled spin-lattice physics in which thermal expansion, local disorder, and magnetism respond together.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by four interlocked measurements: Rietveld-refined temperature-dependent XRD supplies the volume anomaly; Voigt line-shape analysis with the Thomas-Cox-Hastings pseudo-Voigt parameter separates Gaussian (inhomogeneous) from Lorentzian (lifetime) broadening; the Klemens decay model provides the anharmonic baseline from which phonon frequency deviations are measured; and linear spin-wave theory converts the Fe-sublattice magnon density of states into the predicted two-magnon Raman response. The coupling constant lambda, defined by the dependence of exchange on atomic displacement, is the conceptual link between the phonon anomalies and magnetic correlations.

What would settle it

A high-resolution diffraction measurement over 5-300 K on the same sample using an internal standard, with explicit correction for sample displacement and sample-holder thermal expansion, would settle the NTE claim: if the volume change disappears or reverses sign, the negative thermal expansion is not supported. A complementary check is capacitive dilatometry on a dense pellet.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that polycrystalline TbFeO3 exhibits negative thermal expansion over 5-300 K—a total volume increase of about 0.017% on cooling—with no structural phase transition. Raman scattering reveals that several phonon modes deviate from the Klemens anharmonic decay model, which the authors interpret as spin-phonon coupling, and that two modes of Ag and B1g symmetry cross over from Gaussian-dominated low-temperature line shapes to mixed Gaussian-Lorentzian profiles at higher temperature, indicating a change from inhomogeneous broadening to lifetime-driven dynamics. High-energy Raman features near 960 and 1108 cm^-1 are assigned to two-magnon scattering from the

Load-bearing premise

The claimed 0.017% volume increase on cooling is larger than systematic errors in the powder XRD experiment, such as sample displacement, holder expansion, and instrument drift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If confirmed, TbFeO3 becomes a candidate component for compensating positive thermal expansion in composite materials.
  • The ~175 K onset of the new Raman mode becomes a benchmark temperature for spin-lattice coupling in orthoferrites, even though no long-range structural or magnetic transition occurs there.
  • The two-magnon assignment provides a basis for future neutron or optical studies of magnon-phonon hybridization in the Pbnm orthoferrite family.
  • The Gaussian-to-Lorentzian crossover shows that line-shape analysis, not only peak position, can expose local magnetic or structural disorder in polycrystalline correlated oxides.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of exchange striction as the NTE driver would be to measure thermal expansion across TN ~ 650 K: if the volume anomaly strengthens near the magnetic ordering temperature, spin-lattice coupling is the likely source.
  • The surface mixed valence seen by XPS makes oxygen stoichiometry a plausible control knob; comparing as-made and oxygen-annealed samples would show whether the NTE and the 175 K mode are intrinsic or vacancy-enhanced.
  • Because the ~206 cm^-1 mode grows without a two-magnon anomaly, it may signal short-range or glassy spin reconfiguration rather than a thermodynamic transition; local probes such as muon spin rotation or neutron pair-distribution analysis could distinguish these possibilities.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a temperature-dependent (5–300 K) study of polycrystalline TbFeO3 combining powder XRD, DC magnetization, XPS, and Raman scattering. The main claims are: (i) a small negative thermal expansion of the unit-cell volume (~0.017% increase on cooling from 303 K to 5 K) with no structural phase transition; (ii) mixed Tb3+/Tb4+ and Fe3+/Fe2+ surface states suggesting oxygen non-stoichiometry; (iii) Raman-active phonon modes whose temperature dependence deviates from the Klemens anharmonic-decay model, interpreted as spin-phonon coupling; (iv) two-magnon excitations near 960 and 1108 cm−1, assigned with the help of linear spin-wave theory using exchange parameters from Ref. [27]; and (v) a broad Raman mode near 206 cm−1 emerging below ~175 K with an order-parameter-like intensity increase. The paper concludes that TbFeO3 shows pronounced interplay among lattice, spin, and local magnetic degrees of freedom.

Significance. If the NTE claim is correct, it would be a new, small negative-thermal-expansion effect in an orthoferrite over a wide temperature range, and the combined structural/magnetic/spectroscopic dataset would be a useful reference. The paper is commendably explicit about several limitations: the spin-phonon coupling analysis is described as qualitative, the power-law exponent for the 206 cm−1 mode is called an effective fitting parameter, and the two-magnon comparison is acknowledged in the SI as qualitative. These statements are in the paper itself and reduce the risk of overclaiming. However, the central NTE conclusion currently rests on an XRD analysis with no calibration or systematic error budget, and several secondary conclusions are built on qualitative fits. The paper is a good candidate for major revision: the multi-technique framework is appropriate, but the evidence for the headline result needs to be strengthened before the conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.A, Fig. 1(e)] The NTE claim rests on a 0.017% volume increase between 303 K and 5 K. The error bars shown are described only as standard uncertainties from Rietveld refinement, i.e., statistical fitting errors. No calibration standard (e.g., NIST SRM 640/660), no sample-displacement refinement versus temperature, and no reproducibility check are reported. An uncorrected systematic effect at the 0.01% level (sample-holder contraction, height drift, zero-point offset, alignment drift) would be comparable to or larger than the claimed effect. The authors should add a temperature-dependent calibration measurement, report the refined displacement parameter as a function of T, or otherwise quantify the systematic floor. Without this, the statement in Section IV that NTE is established 'for the first time' is not supported.
  2. [Section III.E, Fig. 8] The claim of spin-phonon coupling is based on deviations of phonon frequencies from Klemens-model fits, but the deviations are not quantified. The red dotted curves are extrapolations of fits to high-temperature data, yet the paper does not report fit residuals, uncertainties in the fitted parameters (ω0, C, Γ0, Γ), or a comparison against an alternative model. Since some deviations are only a few cm−1, a quantitative Δω(T) = ω_exp − ω_Klemens plot with error bars is needed to substantiate the 'clear deviations' stated in the text. The authors explicitly describe the discussion as qualitative, but the conclusion of spin-phonon coupling is load-bearing for the paper's central message.
  3. [Section III.D, Fig. 5 and inset] The two-magnon assignment is supported only by a qualitative overlap between the calculated 2×MDOS and two broad experimental features at ~960 and ~1108 cm−1. The calculation does not include two-magnon Raman matrix elements, exchange-striction vertices, or orientational averaging for a powder, and the exchange parameters are imported from Ref. [27] rather than determined here. The SI already disclaims this comparison as qualitative, but the main text presents the two-magnon assignment as established and later uses W2M as a spin-correlation proxy. Please either include a more direct two-magnon scattering calculation or clearly label the assignment as tentative in the main text.
  4. [Section III.E, Fig. 9] The emergent 206 cm−1 mode is characterized through difference spectra and a power-law fit A(T) ∝ (T*−T)^β with T*≈175 K and β≈0.36. No uncertainties are given for T* and β, and no alternative functional forms (activated, BCS-like, or Gaussian onset) are tested. Because the mode is weak and broad, it is important to show that the difference-spectrum procedure and the background model do not create or distort the feature; raw Bose-corrected spectra and fit residuals should be displayed. The text properly says β is an effective fitting parameter, but the conclusion of an 'order-parameter-like' evolution goes beyond what a single effective power-law fit can establish.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV] The phrase 'for the first time' should be backed by a comparison with previous thermal-expansion or lattice-parameter studies of TbFeO3; as written it is an unsupported novelty claim.
  2. [Table I] The lattice parameters for this work are quoted without uncertainties, even though the text refers to standard uncertainties from Rietveld refinement. Add the uncertainties and the χ² value in the table.
  3. [Section III.E] The onset temperatures for the Gaussian-to-Lorentzian crossover are inconsistent: 'above ~40 K' for the Ag mode in one paragraph and 'near ~50 K' in the next. Please make these values consistent and explain any discrepancy.
  4. [Fig. 9(a)] The difference spectrum is plotted as |χ''(ω,T)−χ''(ω,300 K)|. Using an absolute value is unconventional for a difference spectrum and should be justified, since it can create artificial cusps at crossings.
  5. [Table IV] Several modes have very large fitting uncertainties (e.g., 257.15±6.18 cm−1 with FWHM 13.60±3.09 cm−1; 403.17±1.32 cm−1 with FWHM 9.20±4.40 cm−1). Please comment on whether these modes are reliably resolved; otherwise the comparison with literature is difficult to evaluate.
  6. [Section III.E] The sentence 'the B1g mode, involving Tb atomic displacements along the a direction, gaussian nature aligns with...' is grammatically incomplete and should be revised.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: central claims are experimental observations or use external exchange parameters

full rationale

The paper's central results are (i) negative thermal expansion from Rietveld-refined powder XRD, (ii) spin-phonon coupling inferred from deviations from the Klemens anharmonic model, and (iii) assignment of the 960/1108 cm^-1 features to two-magnon scattering using linear spin-wave theory. None of these reduces to its own input. The two-magnon calculation uses exchange parameters from Ref. [27], which the paper explicitly states 'were obtained by fitting inelastic neutron scattering data on single-crystal TbFeO3 using the spin Hamiltonian given in Eq. 5'; these parameters are external to the present Raman data, and the resulting magnon density of states is compared with independently measured Raman spectra rather than fitted to them. The NTE claim is a direct experimental reading of refined lattice parameters, not a derived equivalence, and the paper disclaims a microscopic mechanism. The phonon analysis compares measured frequencies/linewidths to a fixed Klemens model, with the paper noting it 'provides a qualitative discussion of spin-phonon coupling rather than a quantitative determination of the coupling strength.' The emergent 206 cm^-1 mode is described with an explicitly phenomenological power law: 'β is treated only as an effective fitting parameter... The fit is employed solely to quantify the onset-like evolution of the emergent Raman response.' The only self-citations ([20], [55]) support the standard Fleury-Loudon two-magnon scattering operator and a magnon-Raman review; they are not load-bearing, as the operator is independently attributed to Fleury and Loudon [54] and no unique conclusion depends on those self-citations. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no definitional equivalence is present. The NTE measurement's susceptibility to systematic XRD error is a validity concern, not a circularity.

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

The ledger is dominated by phenomenological fitting constants. The only imported physical inputs are spin-wave parameters fitted to inelastic neutron scattering in Ref. [27]. The 175 K anomaly is described by an unconstrained empirical power law and is not derived from a microscopic model, so its causal attribution to spin-lattice coupling rests on an assumed anharmonic baseline.

free parameters (4)
  • Curie-Weiss and modified Curie-Weiss parameters = mu_eff = 14.94 mu_B/f.u., theta_CW = 59.6 K, T0 = 651.31 K, TN = 651.36 K
    Fitted to inverse susceptibility near 650-750 K; used to characterize Fe ordering and ferromagnetic correlations, peripheral to the NTE and Raman claims.
  • Klemens model parameters per phonon mode (omega0, C, Gamma0, Gamma) = not tabulated
    Fitted to high-temperature segments of phonon frequency and linewidth data to define the anharmonic baseline; all spin-phonon claims are residuals from these fits.
  • Pseudo-Voigt shape parameter eta and Gaussian widths for the 156 and 329 cm-1 modes = not tabulated, crossover temperatures about 40 K and 125 K
    Gaussian width was allowed to exceed the 2.5 cm-1 instrument response; these free parameters drive the Gaussian-to-Lorentzian crossover claim.
  • Power-law onset parameters for the 206 cm-1 mode = T* about 175 K, beta about 0.36
    A(T) proportional to (T* - T)^beta fit used to argue the mode grows in an order-parameter-like way; the authors state beta is only an effective fitting parameter.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Rietveld refinement under Pbnm symmetry, with standard uncertainties from FullProf, resolves lattice parameter changes at the 0.01% level without calibration or displacement correction.
    Section III.A and Fig. 1(e): the claimed volume change is only 0.017%, yet no calibration standard or systematic-error analysis is reported.
  • domain assumption The Klemens two-phonon decay model is the correct anharmonic baseline, and any residual phonon frequency or linewidth deviation is interpreted as spin-phonon coupling.
    Section III.E: deviations from Eqs. (9) and (10) are attributed to spin-phonon coupling; quasi-harmonic contributions are dismissed solely because the volume change is small.
  • domain assumption The spin Hamiltonian parameters from Ref. [27] (Table V) describe the Fe sublattice in this polycrystalline sample.
    Section III.D: these externally fitted exchange and DM parameters are used in SpinW to compute the magnon density of states and assign the 960 and 1108 cm-1 features to two-magnon scattering.
  • ad hoc to paper The Voigt fits with a released Gaussian width, together with the background model and difference spectra, isolate intrinsic line shapes and do not create the 206 cm-1 mode.
    Section III.E and Fig. 9: the emergent mode is extracted from a difference spectrum and a phenomenological background, with no independent control experiment shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Negative thermal expansion, lattice dynamics, and complex magnetism in TbFeO$_3$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CVDXXIVZ

@misc{pith2026260800469,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Negative thermal expansion, lattice dynamics, and complex magnetism in TbFeO$_3$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CVDXXIVZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00469}
}
abstract

We report a temperature-dependent investigation of orthoferrite TbFeO$_3$ using x-ray diffraction, DC magnetization, and Raman scattering, complemented by room-temperature x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. X-ray diffraction reveals negative thermal expansion over 5-300 K, with a small but systematic increase in unit-cell volume upon cooling in the absence of any structural phase transition. Raman scattering measurements identify the Raman-active phonon modes and show clear deviations from the conventional Klemens anharmonic decay model, particularly in phonon frequencies, indicating the presence of spin-phonon coupling. Two modes of $A_g$ and $B_{1g}$ symmetry exhibit a crossover from Gaussian-dominated line shapes at low temperatures to mixed Gaussian-Lorentzian profiles at higher temperatures, reflecting a transition from inhomogeneous broadening to lifetime-driven dynamics. High-energy Raman spectra reveal two-magnon excitations associated with the Fe sublattice, consistent with linear spin-wave theory, whose spectral weight shows only weak temperature dependence. In addition, a broad Raman mode emerging below $\sim 175$ K exhibits an order-parameter-like temperature evolution and coincides with the onset of phonon anomalies, while no corresponding strong anomaly is observed in the two-magnon response. Taken together, these results establish TbFeO$_3$ as a system with pronounced interplay among lattice dynamics, spin correlations, and emergent local magnetic-lattice anomalies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00469 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Structural refinement of TbFeO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. High-resolution XPS spectra of the Fe- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Magnetization as a function of temperature for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Temperature-dependent Raman spectra of polycrystalline TbFeO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Temperature dependence of the integrated intensity of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Voigt-function fits to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Temperature dependence of the Pseudo-Voigt shape [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Temperature evolution of selected Raman-active phonon modes analyzed within the Klemens anharmonic decay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (a) Temperature dependence of the difference spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    A. K. Ovsianikovet al., J. Magn. Magn. Mater.563, 170025 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Tokura and N

    Y. Tokura and N. Nagaosa, Science288, 462 (2000)

    2000

  3. [2]

    Imada, A

    M. Imada, A. Fujimori, and Y. Tokura, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 1039 (1998)

    1998

  4. [3]

    Dagotto, T

    E. Dagotto, T. Hotta, and A. Moreo, Phys. Rep.344, 1 (2001)

    work page 2001

  5. [4]

    Keimer, S

    B. Keimer, S. A. Kivelson, M. R. Norman, and et al., Nature518, 179 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    Cheong and M

    S.-W. Cheong and M. Mostovoy, Nat. Mater.6, 13 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [6]

    J. H. Ngai, F. J. Walker, and C. H. Ahn, Annu. Rev. Mater. Res.44, 1 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [7]

    R. L. White, J. Appl. Phys.40, 1061 (1969)

    work page 1969

Show all 69 references
  1. [8]

    J. D. Gordonet al., J. Magn. Magn. Mater.3, 288 (1976)

    1976

  2. [9]

    Nikolovet al., J

    O. Nikolovet al., J. Phys.: Condens. Matter6, 3793 (1994)

    1994

  3. [10]

    M. C. Weberet al., Nat. Commun.13, 7822 (2022)

    2022

  4. [11]

    M. J. Karakiet al., Sci. Adv.9, eade7731 (2023)

    2023

  5. [12]

    M. J. Karaki, X. Yang, A. J. Williams, M. Nawwar, V. Doan-Nguyen, J. E. Goldberger, and Y.-M. Lu, arXiv (2022)

    2022

  6. [13]

    Tokunaga, S

    Y. Tokunaga, S. Iguchi, T. Arima, and Y. Tokura, Phys. 14 Rev. Lett.101, 097205 (2008)

    2008

  7. [14]

    Shang, C

    M. Shang, C. Zhang, T. Zhang, L. Yuan, L. Ge, H. Yuan, and S. Feng, Appl. Phys. Lett.102, 062903 (2013)

    2013

  8. [15]

    V. Y. Ivanov, A. M. Kuz’menko, A. Y. Tikhanovskii, A. A. Pronin, and A. A. Mukhin, JETP Lett.117, 38 (2023)

    2023

  9. [16]

    V. Y. Ivanov, A. M. Kuzmenko, A. Y. Tikhanovskii, and A. A. Mukhin, Eur. Phys. J. Plus138, 818 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    Indra, S

    A. Indra, S. Mukherjee, K. Dey, O. Fabelo, L. Canadillas- Delgado, T. Chatterji, J. Strempfer, S. Majumdar, and S. Giri, Phys. Rev. B111, L140412 (2025)

    2025

  11. [18]

    Vilarinhoet al., Sci

    R. Vilarinhoet al., Sci. Rep.12, 9697 (2022)

    2022

  12. [19]

    R. M. Dubrovinet al., Phys. Rev. B110, 134310 (2024)

    2024

  13. [20]

    K. Sen, Y. Yao, R. Heid, A. Omoumi, F. Hardy, K. Willa, M. Merz, A. A. Haghighirad, and M. Le Tacon, Phys. Rev. B100, 104301 (2019)

    2019

  14. [21]

    K. Sen, D. Fuchs, R. Heid, and et al., Nat. Commun.11, 4270 (2020)

    2020

  15. [22]

    T. P. Devereaux and R. Hackl, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 175 (2007)

    2007

  16. [23]

    Rodríguez-Carvajal, Satellite Meeting on Powder Diffraction of the XV Congress of the IUCr127, 127 (1990)

    J. Rodríguez-Carvajal, Satellite Meeting on Powder Diffraction of the XV Congress of the IUCr127, 127 (1990)

    1990

  17. [24]

    Fairley,CasaXPS: Software for X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, Casa Software Ltd., Teignmouth, UK (2009), version 2.3.15

    N. Fairley,CasaXPS: Software for X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, Casa Software Ltd., Teignmouth, UK (2009), version 2.3.15

    2009

  18. [25]

    Bombik, B

    A. Bombik, B. Leśniewska, J. Mayer, and A. W. Pacyna, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.257, 206 (2003)

    2003

  19. [26]

    Marezio, J

    M. Marezio, J. P. Remeika, and P. D. Dernier, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. B26, 2008 (1970)

    2008

  20. [28]

    Nishikubo, Y

    T. Nishikubo, Y. Sakai, K. Oka, T. Watanuki, A. Machida, M. Mizumaki, K. Maebayashi, T. Imai, T. Ogata, K. Yokoyama, Y. Okimoto, S. y. Koshihara, H. Hojo, T. Mizokawa, and M. Azuma, J. Am. Chem. Soc.141, 19397 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Azuma, W

    M. Azuma, W. T. Chen, H. Seki, M. Czapski, T. Shi- makawa, Y. Ueda, M. Takano, and J. P. Attfield, Nat. Commun.2, 347 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Zhao, F.-X

    Y.-Y. Zhao, F.-X. Hu, L.-F. Bao, J. Wang, H. Wu, Q.- Z. Huang, R.-R. Wu, Y. Liu, F.-R. Shen, H. Kuang, M. Zhang, W.-L. Zuo, X.-Q. Zheng, J.-R. Sun, and B.-G. Shen, J. Am. Chem. Soc.137, 1746 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Huang, Y

    R. Huang, Y. Liu, W. Fan, J. Tan, F. Xiao, L. Qian, and L. Li, J. Am. Chem. Soc.135, 11469 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    U. D. Wdowik, K. Parlinski, and T. Røg, J. Phys.: Con- dens. Matter23, 245402 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    F. Qin, X. Bai, Y.-W. Fang, P. Zhu, J. Wang, P. Cheng, D. Wang, L. Hu, J. Sun, and X. Ding, Nat. Commun.16, 9977 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    T. F. Qi, O. B. Korneta, S. Parkin, L. E. D. Long, P. Schlottmann, and G. Cao, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 177203 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    N. Shi, A. Sanson, Q. Gao, Q. Sun, Y. Ren, Q. Huang, D. O. de Souza, X. Xing, and J. Chen, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 142, 3088 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    G. D. Adhikary, P. Punetha, R. P. Singh, V. Dwiji, V. Sathe, A. Senyshyn, P. Nukala, and R. Ranjan, Phys. Rev. B108, L140104 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Takenaka, Y

    K. Takenaka, Y. Okamoto, T. Shinoda, N. Katayama, and Y. Sakai, Nature Communications8, 14102 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Y. S. Touloukian, R. Kirby, R. Taylor, and P. Desai, Thermal expansion: Metallic elements and alloys by Touloukian , 59083 (1975)

    1975

  31. [39]

    Lucht, M

    M. Lucht, M. Lerche, H.-C. Wille, Y. V. Shvyd’Ko, H. Rüter, E. Gerdau, and P. Becker, Applied Crystal- lography36, 1075 (2003)

    2003

  32. [40]

    P. S. Bagus, C. J. Nelin, C. R. Brundle, B. V. Crist, N. Lahiri, and K. M. Rosso, J. Chem. Phys.154, 094701 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Yamashita and P

    T. Yamashita and P. Hayes, Appl. Surf. Sci.254, 2441 (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    C. Zhu, X. Xu, J. C. Nie, M. L. Sui, and Y. Chen, Appl. Phys. Lett.108, 051113 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    Artyukhinet al., Nat

    S. Artyukhinet al., Nat. Mater.11, 694 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    S. B. Kim, S. J. Moon, S. J. Kim, and C. S. Kim, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.310, e592 (2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    Moriya, Phys

    T. Moriya, Phys. Rev.120, 91 (1960)

    1960

  38. [46]

    Dzyaloshinskii, J

    I. Dzyaloshinskii, J. Phys. Chem. Solids4, 241 (1958)

    1958

  39. [47]

    Treves, Journal of Applied Physics36, 1033 (1965)

    D. Treves, Journal of Applied Physics36, 1033 (1965)

    1965

  40. [48]

    Zener, Phys

    C. Zener, Phys. Rev.82, 403 (1951)

    1951

  41. [49]

    P. G. de Gennes, Phys. Rev.118, 141 (1960)

    1960

  42. [50]

    Yamaguchi, J

    T. Yamaguchi, J. Phys. Chem. Solids35, 479 (1974)

    1974

  43. [51]

    M. C. Weberet al., Phys. Rev. B94, 214103 (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    Venugopalan, M

    S. Venugopalan, M. Dutta, A. K. Ramdas, and J. P. Remeika, Physical Review B31, 1490 (1985)

    1985

  45. [53]

    Y. S. Ponosov and D. Y. Novoselov, Phys. Rev. B102, 054418 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    P. A. Fleury and R. Loudon, Phys. Rev.166, 514 (1968)

    1968

  47. [55]

    Kumawat, S

    R. Kumawat, S. Farswan, S. Kaur, S. Bhatia, and K. Sen, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter36, 493001 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Toth and B

    S. Toth and B. Lake, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter27, 166002 (2015)

    2015

  49. [57]

    Thompson, D

    P. Thompson, D. E. Cox, and J. B. Hastings, J. Appl. Crystallogr.20, 79 (1987)

    1987

  50. [58]

    it is attributed to short-range structural disorder in the crystal lattice, likely arising from angular distortions of the tetrahedral bonds. In TbFeO3, the dominance of the Gaussian component at low temperatures indicates that the linewidth is governed primarily by a distribu...

    2024

  51. [59]

    B. C. Johnson, B. Haberl, J. E. Bradby, J. C. McCallum, and J. S. Williams, Phys. Rev. B83, 235205 (2011)

    2011

  52. [60]

    Granado, A

    E. Granado, A. García, J. A. Sanjurjo, C. Rettori, I. Tor- riani, F. Prado, R. D. Sánchez, A. Caneiro, and S. B. Oseroff, Phys. Rev. B60, 11879 (1999)

    1999

  53. [61]

    P. G. Klemens, Phys. Rev.148, 845 (1966)

    1966

  54. [62]

    Menéndez and M

    J. Menéndez and M. Cardona, Phys. Rev. B29, 2051 (1984)

  55. [63]

    Z. Zhou, W. T. Jin, W. Li, S. Nandi, B. Ouladdiaf, Z. Yan, X. Wei, X. Xu, W. H. Jiao, N. Qureshi, Y. Xiao, Y. Su, G. H. Cao, and T. Brückel, Phys. Rev. B100, 060406 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    A. G. Shard, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A38, 041201 (2020). 15 Supplementary Information

    2020

  57. [65]

    XRD FIG. S1. Temperature dependence of the instantaneous thermal expansion response

  58. [66]

    The EDX spectra confirm the presence of the constituent elements Tb, Fe, and O

    EDX Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) measurements were performed using a Hitachi FlexSEM 1000 II to determine the elemental composition of the sample. The EDX spectra confirm the presence of the constituent elements Tb, Fe, and O. Measurements were carried out at thr...

  59. [67]

    The summation runs over all detected elements in the spectrum [63]

    XPS The atomic fraction of elementpwas calculated using the standard XPS quantitative relation X= Ip/Sp∑ jIj/Sj ,(S1) where Ip is the integrated peak area of the photoelectron line of elementp and Sp is the corresponding relative sensitivity factor. The summation runs over all...

  60. [68]

    MAGNETIZATION FIG. S5. Isothermal field-dependent magnetizationM(H)of TbFeO 3. Fig. S1(a) and S1(b) correspond to data obtained using two different measurement assemblies. Over the complete field cycle, the magnetization exhibits distinct behavior across five segments. At 200 ...

  61. [69]

    RAMAN SCATTERING FIG. S6. Temperature-dependent Raman scattering spectra of TbFeO3 (TFO) showing the evolution of phonon modes in the low-wavenumber region. 19 FIG. S7. Temperature-dependent Raman scattering spectra of TbFeO3 (TFO) showing the evolution of magnon modes and two...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.