Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 66 references

Contrasting pressure evolutions of $f$ electron hybridized states in CeRhIn$_5$ and YbNi$_3$Ga$_9$: an optical conductivity study

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Optical conductivity under pressure shows CeRhIn$_5$ and YbNi$_3$Ga$_9$ develop opposite f-electron hybridization trends.

desk verdict New high-pressure optics data with an opposite mIR-peak trend across a Ce/Yb pair; the qualitative claim holds, but the Yb interpretation leans on an unmeasured f-level shift and fit-dependent points. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03667 v2 pith:DRGLVJ2C submitted 2019-08-10 cond-mat.str-el

H. Okamura , A. Takigawa , T. Yamasaki , E. D. Bauer , S. Ohara , Y. Ikemoto , T. Moriwaki This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el PACS 75.30.Mb74.70.Tx74.62.Fj78.30.-j
keywords opticalconductivitymid-infraredpeakc-fhybridizationheavyfermionintermediatevalenceCeRhIn5YbNi3Ga9electron-holesymmetry
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 measures optical conductivity of CeRhIn$_5$ and YbNi$_3$Ga$_9$ under pressures up to 10 GPa and at temperatures down to 6 K, trying to show how their $f$-electron hybridization responds to pressure. In CeRhIn$_5$ a mid-infrared absorption peak appears and shifts upward in energy, from roughly 70 meV at 2 GPa to about 90 meV at 8 GPa, signaling stronger hybridization between conduction and $f$ electrons. In YbNi$_3$Ga$_9$ the same kind of peak, already strong at ambient pressure, shifts downward and fades until it nearly merges with the Drude free-carrier response at 10 GPa, indicating effective hybridization that weakens under pressure. The authors attribute both trends to the electron-hole symmetry between Ce$^{3+}$ ($f^1$) and Yb$^{3+}$ ($f^{13}$) combined with ionic-radius effects, and they locate the pressure evolution on a known universal relation between peak energy and hybridization strength. If correct, the results make optical spectroscopy a direct probe of pressure-tuned localization and test how far the Ce-Yb electron-hole analogy extends.

What carries the argument

The central object is the mid-infrared (mIR) peak in optical conductivity, interpreted as an optical excitation across renormalized $c$-$f$ hybridized bands. The load-bearing identity is $E_{\rm mIR}\simeq 2\tilde{V}\simeq\sqrt{T_K W}$, which ties the peak position to the renormalized $c$-$f$ hybridization $\tilde{V}$, the Kondo temperature $T_K$, and the conduction bandwidth $W$; a second identity, $J_{cf}\simeq |V|^2/|E_F-\varepsilon_f|$, links the effective exchange to the bare hybridization $V$ and the $f$-level position. Pressure enters through the ionic-radius/electron-hole picture: it moves the Ce $f$ level toward $E_F$ and the Yb $f$-hole level away from $E_F$. The mIR peak's energy, width, and spectral weight are then used as a direct optical readout of whether pressure localizes or delocalizes the $f$ electrons.

What would settle it

Measure YbNi$_3$Ga$_9$'s valence and $f$-level position relative to the Fermi energy (for example, by X-ray absorption or photoemission) across 0-10 GPa; if $|E_F-\varepsilon_f|$ does not increase faster than $|V|^2$, or if the declining mid-infrared peak energy loses its correlation with an independently measured Kondo scale, the electron-hole symmetry explanation would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the pressure evolution of the mid-infrared peak in optical conductivity is opposite for the two compounds. In CeRhIn$_5$ the mIR peak develops with pressure and moves from roughly 70 meV at 2 GPa to about 90 meV at 8 GPa, while its width and spectral weight grow; on the standard reading $E_{\rm mIR}\simeq 2\tilde{V}$, this is a pressure-driven increase of the renormalized $c$-$f$ hybridization, moving the material from nearly localized toward intermediate-valence behavior. In YbNi$_3$Ga$_9$ the well-developed mIR peak at ambient pressure ($E_{\rm mIR}\approx 0.18$ eV) shifts downward and weakens with pressure, nearly merging with the Drude component at 10 GPa, which the paper takes as a decrease of effective hybridization despite the expected increase of bare hybridization. The proposed mechanism is the ionic-radius and electron-hole argument: pressure raises the Ce 4$f$ level toward $E_F$, so $J_{cf}\simeq |V|^2/|E_F-\varepsilon_f|$ grows, while it raises the Yb 4$f$-hole level away from $E_F$, so the denominator wins and $J_{cf}$ falls. The two materials therefore move in opposite directions on the universal relation between mIR peak energy and a hybridization measure.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the assumption that the mid-infrared peak's energy directly measures the renormalized $c$-$f$ hybridization and that in YbNi$_3$Ga$_9$ pressure pushes the $f$-hole level away from the Fermi energy faster than it increases the raw hybridization; if the peak simply faded because of a valence crossover or a band-structure effect, the opposite-hybridization conclusion would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For CeRhIn$_5$, the low-temperature normal state is tuned by pressure from weakly hybridized to strongly hybridized, with the mIR peak energy rising from 70 to 90 meV, so the electronic structure that hosts the quantum critical and superconducting behavior is not fixed.
  • For YbNi$_3$Ga$_9$, the effective $c$-$f$ hybridization decreases with pressure even though atomic overlap increases, consistent with the measured valence increase and the appearance of antiferromagnetic order above the critical pressure near 9 GPa.
  • The pressure points of both compounds fall on the same universal relation between mIR peak energy and hybridization measure, with CeRhIn$_5$ moving to higher hybridization energy and YbNi$_3$Ga$_9$ to lower.
  • At 10 GPa YbNi$_3$Ga$_9$ still shows a residual mIR component with sizable spectral weight, so some hybridization persists even in the more localized regime.
  • The observed asymmetry in peak broadening and in the size of the energy shift shows that the simple electron-hole symmetry picture is only qualitative for these two materials.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension of the electron-hole argument is that other Yb-based intermediate-valence compounds, such as YbCu$_2$Ge$_2$ and YbAl$_2$, should show a similar pressure-induced downturn of their mIR peak energy; measuring their optical conductivity under pressure would check whether the Yb behavior is generic.
  • Because the paper does not directly measure the Yb $f$-level position, an experiment tracking that level relative to the Fermi energy under pressure (for example, by photoemission or resonant X-ray emission) could confirm that it moves away faster than the raw hybridization grows; if not, the weakening-hybridization reading would need revision.
  • The model implies that YbNi$_3$Ga$_9$'s mIR peak energy should keep decreasing or saturate beyond 10 GPa as long as the $f$-hole level outruns the growing bare hybridization; a turnaround at higher pressure would signal that the bare hybridization term eventually dominates.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports optical conductivity measurements of CeRhIn5 and YbNi3Ga9 under external pressures up to 10 GPa and at low temperatures (6–8 K). The central empirical finding is that the mid-infrared (mIR) peak evolves oppositely in the two compounds: in CeRhIn5 it develops with pressure and shifts to higher energy, whereas in YbNi3Ga9 it weakens and shifts to lower energy, nearly merging with the Drude component at 10 GPa. The authors interpret these trends as opposite pressure dependencies of the effective c-f hybridization and discuss them within the electron-hole symmetry picture between Ce and Yb compounds.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, the paper provides valuable new high-pressure optical data that constrain how c-f hybridization evolves across the Ce/Yb electron-hole asymmetry. The raw spectra in Fig. 5 give direct, model-independent evidence of the contrasting qualitative trends, and the placement of the new data points on the existing universal relation of Ref. 10 is a useful empirical test rather than a circular fit. The high-pressure DAC optical experiments to 10 GPa are technically demanding, and the comparison between a Ce and a Yb compound in the same pressure range is instructive. The main weakness is that the quantitative YbNi3Ga9 trajectory, and especially the interpretation of the diminishing mIR peak as a decrease in renormalized hybridization, rests on fit-dependent quantities and an unmeasured f-level shift.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix and Fig. 4(d)] The quantitative evolution of the mIR peak in YbNi3Ga9, most importantly the 10 GPa point that anchors the 'merged with Drude' conclusion, is obtained from Drude-Lorentz fitting in a regime where the text itself states that the mIR peak is 'not well resolved from the Drude component any more.' No uncertainties or robustness checks are reported for the fitted EmIR, FWHM, and SW values. Please provide estimates of fit uncertainty, for example by varying the number of Lorentz oscillators, changing the Drude constraints, or trying alternative decompositions. As written, the quantitative downshift and reduced spectral weight at 10 GPa cannot be distinguished from decomposition ambiguity.
  2. [Section III.C, Eq. (2)] The inference that the decreasing EmIR of YbNi3Ga9 reflects a decrease of the renormalized hybridization V~ assumes that |EF - εf| increases with pressure faster than |V|^2. This f-level shift is not measured for YbNi3Ga9; footnote 63 and Ref. 61 provide a generic electrostatic argument, not material-specific data. The paper should explicitly label this as a plausible interpretation rather than a demonstrated conclusion, and discuss alternative origins of the weakening and apparent downshift of the mIR peak, such as a valence crossover, enhanced scattering, or changes in the Drude-Lorentz decomposition. This issue is load-bearing because the paper's central statement about 'opposite pressure evolutions of f electron hybridized states' relies on the assignment of the YbNi3Ga9 mIR peak evolution to a reduced V~.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II] The text contains a typo: 'Kramres-Kronig' should be 'Kramers-Kronig'.
  2. [Fig. 4(c), Fig. 4(d)] The two-peak structure of the YbNi3Ga9 mIR feature at 3 and 6 GPa is described in the main text, and the center-of-mass definition of EmIR is given only in the Appendix. This definition and the criterion for using more than two Lorentz oscillators should be stated in the main text where the fit results are first discussed.
  3. [Fig. 3(b) and Fig. 4(b)] The interpolation across the 0.23–0.3 eV range caused by diamond absorption is mentioned in the figure captions and footnote 49, but a sensitivity test or illustrative comparison showing that the interpolation does not affect the mIR peak parameters would increase confidence in the quantitative fits.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption] The newly added data points are described as red, but the caption does not specify how they are distinguished in grayscale printing; using distinct symbols in addition to color would improve accessibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central experimental trends are direct spectral observations, and the interpretive model is independently established.

full rationale

The paper reports direct optical-conductivity spectra at different pressures. The central claim—opposite pressure evolutions of the mid-infrared peak in CeRhIn5 versus YbNi3Ga9—is read off raw spectra in Fig. 5 and does not depend on any fitted parameter that is later called a prediction. The peak energies and spectral weights are obtained by Drude-Lorentz fitting, but the qualitative trends (growth/up-shift for CeRhIn5; down-shift/diminishing for YbNi3Ga9) are visible in the measured sigma(omega) curves. Interpretation uses EmIR ≈ 2V~ and V~ ≈ sqrt(TK W) (Eq. 1), attributed to independent theoretical work (Refs. 18–20) and to an empirical universal relation (Refs. 8–11, Fig. 1). Although Fig. 1 is reproduced from Ref. 10, whose first author is also a co-author here, the newly added CeRhIn5/CeCoIn5/YbNi3Ga9 points are independent measurements plotted against literature gamma values; they test, rather than define, the relation. The Yb discussion uses Eq. (2) (Schrieffer–Wolff) with the assumption that epsilon_f moves away from EF under pressure (footnote 63 and Ref. 61); this is an unmeasured interpretive assumption and a correctness/robustness risk, not a circular reduction, because the observed EmIR decrease is not the definition of that f-level shift. The Appendix's admission that at 10 GPa 'the mIR peak is not well resolved from the Drude component any more' flags fitting uncertainty at the highest pressure, but this again affects reliability rather than circularity. No equation in the paper is shown to be equivalent to its inputs by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rely on established models for the origin of the mid-infrared peak in heavy-fermion optical conductivity, on the Kramers-Kronig analysis with extrapolations, and on qualitative ionic-radius arguments for pressure shifts of f-levels. No new free constants are introduced; the fitted oscillator parameters define the reported peak quantities.

free parameters (3)
  • mIR Lorentz oscillator energies (omega0) and widths (gamma) = Not individually reported; resulting EmIR 70-90 meV (CeRhIn5), 0.18-0.10 eV (YbNi3Ga9)
    Determined by Drude-Lorentz fitting; two oscillators used without assigned microscopic origin, so peak parameters carry ambiguity.
  • Drude component sigma(0) constraint for CeRhIn5 = 8-20 x 10^4 Ohm^-1 cm^-1
    Kept in this range to constrain the Drude fit because the low-energy range was not covered by DAC measurements.
  • Background Lorentz oscillator parameters = Peak at 0.45 eV (CeRhIn5) or 0.75 eV (YbNi3Ga9); eps_inf=5
    Fixed background model used in the fits; affects the extracted mIR peak shape and weight.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Kramers-Kronig relation and Hagen-Rubens extrapolation yield reliable sigma(omega) from measured R(omega)
    Invoked in Section II; requires extrapolations below 20-25 meV and across a diamond absorption gap.
  • domain assumption The mid-infrared peak in sigma(omega) of Ce/Yb intermetallics originates from transitions in renormalized c-f hybridized bands, with EmIR roughly 2V~
    Assumed from Refs 6-10 and 18-20 and used throughout; not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The universal relation between EmIR and sqrt(a/(gamma*gamma0)) holds for these compounds
    Used to place new data on Fig. 1; relation established empirically in Ref 10 by the same first author.
  • standard math Jcf roughly |V|^2 / |EF - eps_f| describes the c-f exchange and is valid under electron-hole symmetry
    Cited from Ref 62; used to argue that for Yb, |EF - eps_f| increases faster than |V|^2.
  • domain assumption Under pressure, eps_f shifts toward EF for Ce and away from EF for Yb
    Qualitative ionic-radius and charge argument stated in Section III.C and footnote 63; not directly measured.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Contrasting pressure evolutions of $f$ electron hybridized states in CeRhIn$_5$ and YbNi$_3$Ga$_9$: an optical conductivity study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DRGLVJ2C

@misc{pith2026190803667,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Contrasting pressure evolutions of $f$ electron hybridized states in CeRhIn$_5$ and YbNi$_3$Ga$_9$: an optical conductivity study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DRGLVJ2C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03667}
}
abstract

Optical conductivity [$\sigma(\omega)$] of CeRhIn$_5$ and YbNi$_3$Ga$_9$ have been measured at external pressures to 10 GPa and at low temperatures to 6 K. Regarding CeRhIn$_5$, at ambient pressure the main feature in $\sigma(\omega)$ is a Drude peak due to free carriers. With increasing pressure, however, a characteristic mid-infrared (mIR) peak rapidly develops in $\sigma(\omega)$, and its peak energy and width increase with pressure. These features are consistent with an increased conduction ($c$)-$f$ electron hybridization at high pressure, and show that the pressure has tuned the electronic state of CeRhIn$_5$ from very weakly to strongly hybridized ones. As for YbNi$_3$Ga$_9$, in contrast, a marked mIR peak is observed already at ambient pressure, indicating a strong $c$-$f$ hybridization. At high pressures, however, the mIR peak shifts to lower energy and becomes diminished, and seems merged with the Drude component at 10 GPa. Namely, CeRhIn$_5$ and YbNi$_3$Ga$_9$ exhibit some opposite tendencies in the pressure evolutions of $\sigma(\omega)$ and electronic structures. These results are discussed in terms of the pressure evolutions of $c$-$f$ hybridized electronic states in Ce and Yb compounds, in particular in terms of the electron-hole symmetry often considered between Ce and Yb compounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03667 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) A universal relation between the opti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic phase diagrams of (a) CeRhIn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) Comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) (a) Examples of Drude-Lorentz fitting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    O nuki, Physics of Heavy Fermions: Heavy Fermions and Strongly Correlated Electron Systems (World Scientific, 2018)

    See, for example, Y. O nuki, Physics of Heavy Fermions: Heavy Fermions and Strongly Correlated Electron Systems (World Scientific, 2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Lawrence, Mod

    J. Lawrence, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 22 , 1273 (2008)

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    P. S. Riseborough and J. M. Lawrence, Rep. Prog. Phys. 79 , 084501 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    For a recent review, see, for example, R. Y. Chen and N. L. Wang, Rep. Prog. Phys. 79 , 064502 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    B. C. Webb, A. J. Sievers, and T. Mihalisin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57 , 1951 (1986)

    work page 1986

  6. [6]

    S. R. Garner, J. N. Hancock, Y. W. Rodriguez, Z. Schlesinger, B. Bucher, Z. Fisk, and J. L. Sarrao, Phys. Rev. B 62 , R4778 (2000)

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Degiorgi, F

    L. Degiorgi, F. Anders, and G. Gruner, Eur. Phys. J. B 19 , 167 (2001)

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    S. V. Dordevic, D. N. Basov, N. R. Dilley, E. D. Bauer, and M. B. Maple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 , 684 (2001)

    work page 2001

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    J. N. Hancock, T. McKnew, Z. Schlesinger, J. L. Sarrao, and Z. Fisk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 , 186405 (2004)

    2004

  2. [10]

    Okamura, T

    H. Okamura, T. Watanabe, M. Matsunami, T. Nishihara, N. Tsujii, T. Ebihara, H. Sugawara, H. Sato, Y. O nuki, Y. Ishikawa, T. Takabatake, and T. Nanba, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 76 , 023703 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    Lonzarich, D

    G. Lonzarich, D. Pines, and Y. Yang, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80 , 024501 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Mutou and T

    T. Mutou and T. Saso, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 73 , 2900 (2004)

    2004

  5. [13]

    Kuroiwa, Y

    H. Kuroiwa, Y. Imai, and T. Saso, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 76 , 124704 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    Kimura, T

    S. Kimura, T. Iizuka, and Y. Kwon, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 78 , 013710 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    Kimura, Phys

    S. Kimura, Phys. Rev. B 80 , 073103 (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    Kimura, Y

    S. Kimura, Y. Kwon, Y. Matsumoto, H. Aoki, and O. Sakai, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 85 , 083702 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    K. S. Burch, S. V. Dordevic, F. P. Mena, A. B. Kuzmenko, D. van der Marel, J. L. Sarrao, J. R. Jeffries, E. D. Bauer, M. B. Maple, and D. N. Basov, Phys. Rev. B 75 , 054523 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    D. L. Cox, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58 , 2730 (1987)

    1987

  11. [19]

    Coleman, in Handbook of Magnetism and Advanced Magnetic Materials Vol

    P. Coleman, in Handbook of Magnetism and Advanced Magnetic Materials Vol. 1: Fundamentals and Theory (Wiley, New York, 2007). Also available as P. Coleman, Heavy Fermions: electrons at the edge of magnetism, arXiv:cond-mat/0612006 (2007)

    2007 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Coleman, Heavy fermions and the Kondo lattice: a 21st century perspevtive, arXiv: 1509.05769 (2015)

    P. Coleman, Heavy fermions and the Kondo lattice: a 21st century perspevtive, arXiv: 1509.05769 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Kadowaki and S

    K. Kadowaki and S. B. Woods, Solid State Commun. 58 , 507 (1986)

    1986

  14. [22]

    Tsujii, H

    N. Tsujii, H. Kontani, and K. Yoshimura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 , 057201 (2005)

    2005

  15. [23]

    Heavy fermion material: Ce versus Yb case

    J. Flouquet and H. Harima, "Heavy fermion material: Ce versus Yb case", arXiv:0910.3110 (2009). Also published in Japanese in Kotai Butsuri 47 , 47 (2012)

    2009 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Knebel, R

    G. Knebel, R. Boursier, E. Hassinger, G. Lapertot, P. G. Niklowetz, A. Pourret, B. Salce, J. P. Sanchez, I. Sheikin, P. Bonville, H. Harima, and J. Flouquet, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 75 , 114709 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    A. V. Goltsev and M. M. Abd-Elmeguid, J. Phys.: Condense. Matter 17 , S813 (2005)

    2005

  18. [26]

    J. D. Thompson and J. M. Lawrence, Handbook on the Physics and Chemistry of Rare Earths, Vol. 19 (ed. K.A. Gschneidner, Jr. L. Eyring, G. H. Lander, and G. R. Choppin, Elsevier 1994), p382

    1994

  19. [27]

    Hegger, C

    H. Hegger, C. Petrovic, E. G. Moshopoulou, M. F. Hundley, J. L. Sarrao, Z. Fisk, J. D. Thompson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 , 4986 (2000)

    2000

  20. [28]

    Muramatsu, N

    T. Muramatsu, N. Tateiwa, T. C. Kobayashi, K. Shimizu, K. Amaya, D. Aoki, H. Shishido, Y. Haga, and Y. O nuki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 70 , 3362 (2001)

    2001

  21. [29]

    For review, see, for example, J. L. Sarrao and J. D. Thompson, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 76 , 051013 (2007), and papers cited therein

    2007

  22. [30]

    Shishido, R

    H. Shishido, R. Settai, H. Harima, and Y. O nuki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 74 , 1103 (2005)

    2005

  23. [31]

    T. Park, F. Ronning, H. Q. Yuan, M. B. Salamon, R. Movshovich, J. L. Sarrao, and J. D. Thompson, Nature 440 , 65 (2006),

    2006

  24. [32]

    Knebel, D

    G. Knebel, D. Aoki, J.-P. Brison, and J. Flouquet, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 77 , 114704 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    F. P. Mena, D. van der Marel, and J. L. Sarrao, Phys. Rev. B 72 , 045119 (2005)

    2005

  26. [34]

    Yamashita, R

    T. Yamashita, R. Miyazaki, Y. Aoki, and S. Ohara, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 81 , 034705 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    Utsumi, H

    Y. Utsumi, H. Sato, S. Ohara, T. Yamashita, K. Mimura, S. Motonami, K. Shimada, S. Ueda, K. Kobayashi, H. Yamaoka, N. Tsujii, N. Hiraoka, H. Namatame, M. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. B 86 , 115114 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Matsubayashi, T

    K. Matsubayashi, T. Hirayama, T. Yamashita, S. Ohara, N. Kawamura, M. Mizumaki, N. Ishimatsu, S. Watanabe, K. Kitagawa, Y. Uwatoko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 , 086401 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    K. Umeo, T. Otaki, Y. Arai, S. Ohara, and T. Takabatake, Phys. Rev. B 98 , 024420 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Dressel and G

    M. Dressel and G. Gr \"u ner, Electrodynamics of Solids (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002)

    2002

  31. [39]

    Okamura, Chapter 4 in Optical Techniques for Solid State Materials Characterization (R

    H. Okamura, Chapter 4 in Optical Techniques for Solid State Materials Characterization (R. Prasankumar and A. Taylor, Ed.), CRC Press (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    Fukui, H

    K. Fukui, H. Miura, H. Nakagawa, I. Shimoyama, K. Nakgawa, H. Okamura, T. Nanba, M. Hasumoto, and T. Kinoshita, Nucl. Instr. Methods Phys. Res. A 467-468 , 601 (2001)

    2001

  33. [41]

    Okamura, Y

    H. Okamura, Y. Ikemoto, T. Mariwaki, and T. Nanba, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 56 , 05FA11 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Tateiwa and Y

    N. Tateiwa and Y. Haga, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 80 , 123901 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    Klotz, K

    S. Klotz, K. Takemura, Th. Strassie, and Th. Hansen, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 24 , 325103 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    Glycerin has good characteristics as a pressure transmitting medium. medium1,medium2 It does not solidify at room T up to about 5 GPa, and produces more hydrostatic pressure even at lower T compared with solid media such as NaCl and KBr, which are commonly used for optical stu...

  37. [45]

    Okamura, J

    H. Okamura, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 359 , 012013 (2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    Kimura and H

    S. Kimura and H. Okamura, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 82 , 021004 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    Ikemoto, T

    Y. Ikemoto, T. Moriwaki, T. Hirono, S. Kimura, K. Shinoda, M. Matsunami, N. Nagai, T. Nanba, K. Kobayashi, and H. Kimura, Infrared Phys. Tech. 45 , 369 (2004)

    2004

  40. [48]

    Moriwaki and Y

    T. Moriwaki and Y. Ikemoto, Infrared Phys. Tech. 51 , 400 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    Therefore, the R( ) spectra in this range were interpolated as indicated by the broken curves in Figs

    Due to strong absorption by the diamond anvil, the spectral range between 0.23 and 0.3 eV could not be measured well. Therefore, the R( ) spectra in this range were interpolated as indicated by the broken curves in Figs. 3(b) and 4(b). It is clear from Figs. 3(c) and 4(c) that...

  42. [50]

    E. J. Singley, D. N. Basov, E. D. Bauer, and M. B. Maple, Phys. Rev. B 65 , 161101(R) (2002)

    2002

  43. [51]

    Okamura, A

    H. Okamura, A. Takigawa, E. D. Bauer, T. Moriwaki, and Y. Ikemoto, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 592 , 012001 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    =290 mJ/K ^2 mol for CeCoIn _5 at 0 GPa, basov _0 =10 mJ/K ^2 mol for LaCoIn _5 , nakatsuji =382 mJ/K ^2 mol for CeRhIn _5 at 2 GPa, fisher and _0 =5.7 mJ/K ^2 mol for LaRhIn _5

    To make the plots, the following data have been used. =290 mJ/K ^2 mol for CeCoIn _5 at 0 GPa, basov _0 =10 mJ/K ^2 mol for LaCoIn _5 , nakatsuji =382 mJ/K ^2 mol for CeRhIn _5 at 2 GPa, fisher and _0 =5.7 mJ/K ^2 mol for LaRhIn _5 . 115-sc

  45. [53]

    Nakatsuji, unpublished data

    S. Nakatsuji, unpublished data

  46. [54]

    R. A. Fisher, F. Bouquet, N. E. Phillips, M. F. Hundley, P. G. Pagliuso, J. L. Sarrao, Z. Fisk, and J. D. Thompson, Phys. Rev. B 65 , 224509 (2002)

    2002

  47. [55]

    Okamura, T

    H. Okamura, T. Michizawa, T. Nanba, and T. Ebihara, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 73 , 2045 (2004)

    2004

  48. [56]

    139-pressure , only the magnetic part of the resistivity ( _m ) at high P is reported

    In Ref. 139-pressure , only the magnetic part of the resistivity ( _m ) at high P is reported. Therefore, we used the resistivity of LuNi _3 Ga _9 at P =0 (Ref. 139-ohara ) as the non-magnetic part ( _0 ) to obtain the total resistivity = _0 + _m , and the corresponding dc con...

  49. [57]

    Okamura, R

    H. Okamura, R. Kitamura, M. Matsunami, H. Sugawara, H. Harima, H. Sato, T. Moriwaki, Y. Ikemoto, T. Nanba, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 80 , 084718 (2011)

    2011

  50. [58]

    Iizuka, T

    T. Iizuka, T. Mizuno, B. H. Min, Y. S. Kwon, S. Kimura, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 81 , 043703 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    =80 and 230 mJ/K ^2 mol at P =3 and 6 GPa, respectively, 139-gamma were used

  52. [60]

    Yamaoka, Y

    H. Yamaoka, Y. Yamamoto, E. F. Schwier, F. Honda, Y. Zekko, Y. Ohta, J.-F. Lin, M. Nakatake, H. Iwasawa, M. Arita, K. Shimada, N. Hiraoka, H. Ishii, K.-D. Tsuei, and J. Mizuki, Phys. Rev. B 92 , 235110 (2015)

    2015

  53. [61]

    Nishiyama, T

    K. Nishiyama, T. Mito, G. Pristas, T. Koyama, K. Ueda, T. Kohara, S. Gabani, K. Flachbart, H. Fukazawa, Y. Kohori, N. Takeshita, N. Shitsevalova, and H. Ikeda, Phys. Rev. B 93 , 121111(R) (2016)

    2016

  54. [62]

    J. R. Schrieffer and P. A. Wolff, Phys. Rev. 149 , 491 (1966)

    1966

  55. [63]

    Note that an Yb or Ce is positively charged locally, since it provides a few electrons into the spatially extended c band

    This is because the negatively charged surrounding of an Yb or Ce becomes closer to the f electrons at high P , causing more Coulomb repulsion between the f electron and the surrounding. Note that an Yb or Ce is positively charged locally, since it provides a few electrons int...

  56. [64]

    Miyake, F

    A. Miyake, F. Honda, R. Settai, K. Shimizu, and Y. O nuki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 81 , SB054 (2012)

    2012

  57. [65]

    Dallera, E

    C. Dallera, E. Annese, J.-P. Rueff, A. Palenzona, G. Vanko, L. Braicovich, A. Shukla, and M. Grioni, Phys. Rev. B 68 , 245114 (2003)

    2003

  58. [66]

    Okamura, M

    H. Okamura, M. Nagata, A. Tsubouchi, Y. O nuki, Y. Ikemoto, and T. Moriwaki, arXiv:1909.11857

    1909 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.