Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Disentangling Electronic and Ionic Nonlinear Polarization Effects in the THz Kerr Response of LaAlO$_{3}$

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that the 0.86 and 0.36 THz features in the THz Kerr response of twinned LaAlO3 are propagation artifacts, while the 1.1 THz Eg mode is excited by two-photon THz absorption.

desk verdict A solid 2D-TKE reassignment of LAO's low-frequency features as propagation artifacts; the temporal evidence carries the paper, and the simulation's rough parameters are a fixable soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10472 v1 pith:NCFRJGUC submitted 2025-06-12 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.otherphysics.optics

Chao Shen , Maximilian Frenzel , Sebastian F. Maehrlein , Zhanybek Alpichshev This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.otherphysics.optics
keywords terahertzKerreffectLaAlO3two-dimensionalTHzspectroscopyfour-wavemixingbirefringenceRamanphonontwo-photonabsorptionpropagationeffects
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

The paper is trying to establish that apparent coherent phonon oscillations in the THz Kerr response of LaAlO3 must be interpreted with propagation effects included, and that doing so resolves earlier puzzles without invoking exotic couplings. Concretely, it claims the 1.1 THz Eg mode is driven by two-photon THz absorption, while the 0.86 THz and 0.36 THz features arise from co- and counter-propagation of THz and 800 nm probe pulses in birefringent twin domains, not from lattice dynamics. A reader should care because this gives a general way to distinguish genuine ionic oscillations from instantaneous electronic polarization in birefringent crystals, preventing false phonon and anharmonic-coupling assignments.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a four-wave mixing simulation of the THz-THz-optical probe interaction in an extended birefringent medium: it propagates the two THz pump pulses and the 800 nm probe on a time-space grid, computes the local third-order polarization $P^{(3)}(t,z)$ from an instantaneous electronic response with all allowed $\chi^{(3)}$ tensor elements set equal, and emits a new field that interferes with the probe in balanced detection. Static birefringence values $\Delta n_{\mathrm{THz}}=0.06$ and $\Delta n_{\mathrm{pr}}=0.007$ produce phase-matching oscillations near 0.85 and 0.39 THz whose lifetimes are set by pulse walk-off, matching the measured 0.86 and 0.36 THz features. The Eg phonon is modeled separately with a driven oscillator equation, $d^2 Q_R/dt^2 + 2\gamma\Omega_R\, dQ_R/dt + \Omega_R^2 Q_R = (\delta/M)\, E(t)^2$, representing two-photon absorption, which reproduces the 1.1 THz 2D-TKE pattern.

What would settle it

Cut or obtain LAO samples of a different thickness, say 1.0 mm instead of 0.5 mm, and repeat the single-pulse TKE measurement: the propagation model predicts the 0.86 THz feature should end at the probe delay where THz and probe meet at the rear surface, which shifts with thickness, and the 0.36 THz feature should start at that same shifted time; if the onset and end times stay at the original roughly 5 ps and 17 ps, the propagation assignment fails. A second check is to rotate the probe polarization so the effective birefringence changes sign, which should alter the simulated artifact frequencies if the model is right.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the three features in the low-temperature THz Kerr response of twinned LaAlO3 come from two distinct mechanisms. The 1.1 THz mode is the Eg Raman phonon, excited quasi-instantaneously by two-photon THz absorption: 2D-TKE shows it peaks when the two THz pump pulses overlap in time, and its nonlinear amplitude scales linearly in each pump field. The 0.86 THz and 0.36 THz features are not lattice modes at all. They appear only over probe-delay windows bounded by the times at which the THz and probe pulses meet at the rear or front sample surfaces, and a four-wave mixing simulation that propagates both pulses through a birefringent medium with an instantaneous electronic hyperpolarizability reproduces them with no anharmonic phonon coupling and no unknown modes. Surface-reflected THz pulses produce additional 1.1 THz oscillations that can mimic anharmonic coupling, but they begin on a calculable echo line rather than at the arrival of the latest pump pulse.

Load-bearing premise

The spurious-signal assignment rests on the four-wave mixing simulation's assumed refractive-index difference values, about 0.06 for the THz pulse and 0.007 for the probe, and on taking all allowed nonlinear tensor components equal; if those numbers were effectively tuned to reproduce the 0.86 and 0.36 THz peaks, the agreement is partly by construction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In any birefringent crystal, apparent low-frequency coherent-phonon modes in THz Kerr data must be checked against co- and counter-propagation artifacts before an intrinsic lattice assignment is made.
  • The previously proposed anharmonic coupling between IR-active acoustic phonons and the Raman mode is not needed to explain the LAO data; two-photon absorption plus propagation effects account for all three observed features.
  • The 1.1 THz Eg mode can be treated as driven by $E(t)^2$, giving a simple route to modeling 2D-TKE signals in centrosymmetric insulators without invoking phonon-phonon coupling.
  • Time-domain cuts of 2D-TKE data can identify surface-reflection echoes by the echo-line condition $t + \tau/2\,(1 \pm v/c) = L(1/v - 1/c)$, providing a diagnostic for spurious oscillations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same four-wave mixing propagation model could be applied to previously reported THz Kerr peaks in other twinned oxide crystals to test whether some assigned low-energy modes are artifacts.
  • Beyond the paper: because the artifact frequencies are set by sample thickness and refractive indices, varying the sample thickness or probe wavelength should shift the 0.86 and 0.36 THz features in a predictable way, a testable prediction the paper does not spell out.
  • Beyond the paper: a polarization-resolved measurement that varies the angle between the THz polarization and the crystal c-axis could probe the equal-$\chi^{(3)}$ assumption; if the tensor ratios differ, the simulated artifact frequencies and lifetimes would change, allowing the model's simplifying assumption to be checked.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports 2D-TKE measurements on a 0.5 mm [100]-cut LaAlO3 crystal at 5 K and in a companion room-temperature run. Three spectral features are observed at 1.1, 0.86, and 0.36 THz. The authors assign the 1.1 THz feature to the Eg Raman phonon driven quasi-instantaneously by two-photon THz excitation, supported by field scaling, the τ≈0 concentration of the 2D signal, and an equation-of-motion model. The 0.86 and 0.36 THz features are assigned to propagation-induced artifacts from co- and counter-propagating THz and 800 nm probe pulses in birefringent twin domains. The evidence includes short-time Fourier analysis showing that the 0.86 THz feature exists only for probe delays below t≈5 ps and the 0.36 THz feature between t≈5 and 17 ps, coinciding with calculated pulse-encounter times; Fabry-Perot sidebands; and an FWM simulation with instantaneous electronic hyperpolarizability that produces short-lived features at 0.85 and 0.39 THz. The Introduction states that the simulation quantitatively reproduces all novel features, while Section III.A and the Fig. 3 caption describe the agreement as qualitative.

Significance. If the central assignment survives scrutiny, the paper is valuable: it provides a cautionary and generalizable framework for separating genuine coherent phonons from propagation artifacts in birefringent crystals, and it offers a resolution to conflicting interpretations of the 1.1 THz excitation mechanism in LaAlO3. The strongest parts are the time-window and world-line arguments, which are largely independent of the FWM simulation parameters: an intrinsic phonon should persist across the full probe-delay window, whereas the observed features start and stop at precisely the calculated pulse-encounter times. The field-scaling data and the Fabry-Perot spacing provide additional support. The weaker part is the quantitative anchoring of the FWM simulation, which relies on unmeasured birefringence values and an idealized 20 fs probe pulse. With a sensitivity analysis or an independent birefringence measurement, the paper would be a solid contribution to nonlinear THz spectroscopy.

major comments (4)
  1. [III.A and Appendix B] The FWM simulation's artifact frequencies (0.85 and 0.39 THz) are set by the assumed static birefringence values Δn_THz=0.06 and Δn_pr=0.007, which are described only as 'on the order of previous estimates' without quoting the prior values, their uncertainties, or an independent measurement on the same crystal. Since the simulation is invoked as confirmation that the 0.86 and 0.36 THz features are spurious, the agreement could be partly by construction. Please add a sensitivity analysis showing how the simulated peak frequencies and lifetimes depend on these two parameters, or provide a direct birefringence measurement; otherwise the quantitative anchor for the assignment is missing.
  2. [Appendix B and Section II.A] The simulation assumes a Fourier-limited 20 fs Gaussian probe pulse, but the experimental probe pulse duration is not stated anywhere. The only pulse duration given is the 170 fs, 800 nm pulse used for THz generation; if the probe is similar, the convolution and phase-matching effects in the FWM simulation could change materially. Please specify the measured probe duration and either justify the 20 fs assumption or repeat the key simulations with the actual probe envelope.
  3. [Introduction and Section III.A] The Introduction claims that the FWM simulations 'quantitatively reproduce all of the novel features', but Section III.A states that 'the simulation results agree qualitatively with the experimental measurements' and the Fig. 3 caption uses 'qualitatively' as well. This distinction matters because the quantitative claim depends on the unvalidated birefringence and probe-duration assumptions discussed above. Please reconcile the wording and, if only qualitative agreement is claimed, soften the Introduction and abstract accordingly.
  4. [III.B and Eq. (4)] The TPA model for the Eg phonon sets δ/M=1 and γ=0.005 and excludes back-reflection and counter-propagation, yet the paper concludes that TPA, rather than anharmonic coupling, is the excitation mechanism. The 2D-TKE data (strongest signal at τ=0 and linear scaling in both fields) are consistent with TPA, but a quantitative uniqueness test would require comparing the measured 2D pattern with at least one alternative anharmonic-coupling model, or showing that the τ≠0 echo-line delayed onset is reproduced by including counter-propagating fields in the Eq. (4) simulation. Please report the parameter sensitivity of the TPA simulations and provide the counter-propagation simulation or explicitly state that the echo-line attribution is only a qualitative argument.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The material is described as 'twinned LaAlO3', but no twinning characterization (e.g., optical or diffraction evidence, twin-domain orientation) is presented anywhere in the text. Please clarify what is meant by twinned and how the twin domains are identified or modeled.
  2. [Appendix A] The derivation of the echo-line relation, Eq. (2), is referenced to Ref. [20], which is listed as 'To be submitted' and is therefore not currently accessible. Please provide the derivation in the main text or an appendix, or cite a published source.
  3. [Appendix B] The assumption that all allowed tensor elements of the third-order susceptibility have the same magnitude is a strong simplification for R-3c symmetry. Please state whether this simplification affects only amplitudes or could also affect the simulated frequencies or lifetimes.
  4. [Fig. 2(c)] The caption says the signal is sampled along the τ=0 line, but the text says the field scaling of ηNL is measured with the other THz pulse set to maximum. Please clarify how the τ=0 sampling is performed experimentally and whether the extracted scaling is along the pump-pump delay axis or along the probe axis.
  5. [Conclusion] There is a typo, 'THz-infared mixing', that should read 'THz-infrared mixing'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the assignment of the 0.86 and 0.36 THz features to propagation artifacts is anchored in independent causality/world-line timing and a forward FWM model with literature-based parameters, not in outputs folded back into inputs.

full rationale

The derivation of the central result is not circular. The 0.86 THz and 0.36 THz features are first shown to be propagation-related by direct time-domain evidence: the 0.86 THz feature terminates at t̃≈5 ps, which the paper computes from literature refractive indices n_THz=5 and n_pr=2 as the moment the THz pump and probe meet at the rear surface, and the 0.36 THz feature begins at t̃ and ends at t̃2≈17 ps, the pump-probe meeting point after back-reflection. This timing evidence does not depend on the FWM simulation or on fitted birefringence. The FWM simulation in Sec. III.A and Appendix B is a forward model: it adopts an instantaneous delta-function χ^(3) response, equal tensor elements, and static birefringence values Δn_THz=0.06 and Δn_pr=0.007 stated to be 'on the order of previous estimates in LAO [11]'. The paper does not report fitting these values to the observed 0.86/0.36 THz peaks, and the simulated frequencies emerge from phase matching in the model rather than being entered as inputs. The only overlapping-author citation is Ref. [10], which supplies the THz-THz-VIS simulation scheme; that is a method citation, not a load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz import, and the assumptions of the scheme are restated openly in Appendix B. A possible concern is that no sensitivity analysis over the birefringence values is given, so the quantitative agreement is less strongly constrained than the word 'quantitatively' suggests; that is a validation/correctness concern, not circularity. The 1.1 THz TPA assignment is likewise supported by the τ≈0 enhancement and linear scaling in both THz fields, with Eq. (4) used as a comparison model, not as a fitted reproduction of the conclusion. Overall, no step in the claimed derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The paper's quantitative content rests on several chosen parameters (birefringence values, damping, tensor element ratios) and simplifying assumptions (instantaneous response, 20 fs probe, constant refractive indices), which a reader must accept to trust the simulation-based assignments.

free parameters (5)
  • Delta_n_THz (THz birefringence) = 0.06
    Static birefringence at THz frequencies set to 0.06, stated as on the order of previous estimates; controls the simulated 0.85 THz propagation-artifact frequency, so it is load-bearing for the spurious-signal assignment (Section III.A).
  • Delta_n_pr (optical probe birefringence) = 0.007 (5 K), 0.005 (295 K)
    Static birefringence at 800 nm set to 0.007; directly influences the simulated 0.39 THz frequency and cutoff times (Section III.A).
  • gamma (Eg phonon damping) = 0.005
    Damping parameter for the Eg mode in Eq. 4, chosen to match the measured Raman phonon lifetime (Section III.B).
  • delta/M (two-photon coupling strength) = unity
    Set equal to unity for simplicity; affects only amplitude, not spectral positions, so it is a scale factor rather than a fitted frequency (Section III.B).
  • chi(3) tensor element ratios = all equal
    All nonzero tensor elements of the third-order susceptibility set to equal magnitude in Appendix B; this is not justified by symmetry alone and affects relative amplitudes of simulated components.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption LAO is in rhombohedral R-3c phase at 5 K and birefringent for THz and optical pulses.
    Invoked in Sections II and III to justify propagation effects; established by prior literature.
  • domain assumption The THz Kerr response is entirely third-order in the electric field due to centrosymmetry.
    Centrosymmetric LAO dictates that the Kerr signal arises from chi(3); used to justify the eta_NL definition. Standard.
  • ad hoc to paper The electronic hyperpolarizability is instantaneous, so the response function is a product of Dirac delta functions (Eq. 3).
    This simplification is adopted in Section III.A to focus on instantaneous electronic response; it ignores finite electronic dephasing times, which could affect the sharp temporal cutoffs.
  • ad hoc to paper The Eg phonon is driven by E(t)^2 in Eq. 4 without coupling to other modes.
    The two-photon absorption equation of motion is assumed; anharmonic coupling is excluded based on the echo-line analysis, but no independent derivation of delta/M or absence of coupling is given.
  • domain assumption Refractive indices n_THz=5 and n_pr=2 are constant over the relevant bandwidth.
    Used for echo-line timing and pulse propagation; values taken from Refs [12] and [16].
  • ad hoc to paper The probe pulse is a Fourier-limited 20 fs Gaussian.
    Appendix B states this assumption, but the experimental probe derives from 170 fs laser pulses; the inconsistent pulse duration may artificially sharpen simulated cutoffs.
  • domain assumption There is no IR-active phonon within the THz pump bandwidth.
    Invoked in Section III.B to argue for TPA over IR-mediated anharmonic coupling; based on Raman/IR data in Ref [25].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Disentangling Electronic and Ionic Nonlinear Polarization Effects in the THz Kerr Response of LaAlO$_{3}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NCFRJGUC

@misc{pith2026250610472,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Disentangling Electronic and Ionic Nonlinear Polarization Effects in the THz Kerr Response of LaAlO$_3$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NCFRJGUC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10472}
}
abstract

Nonlinear responses to intense terahertz (THz) fields provide unique insights into complex dynamics of contemporary material systems. However, the interpretation of the obtained data, in particular, distinguishing genuine ionic oscillations from the instantaneous electronic responses in THz Kerr effect remains challenging. Here, we combine two-dimensional Terahertz Kerr effect (2D-TKE) spectroscopy experiments and their modeling to unravel complex THz-induced temporal oscillations in twinned LaAlO$_3$ crystals at low temperatures. We identify the 1.1 THz mode as $E_g$ Raman phonon, while 0.86 THz and 0.36 THz signals are due to spurious effects resulting from the co- and counter-propagation of THz and optical probe pulses in birefringent twin domains. Furthermore, we determine that the $E_g$ mode is excited via a two-photon process, whereas THz pulse reflections at the sample surface produce a temporal response that can mimic anharmonic phonon coupling. Our findings highlight the importance of propagation effects in nonlinear THz experiments and provide a refined framework for interpreting THz polarization dynamics in birefringent crystals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10472 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Single pulse TKE measurement and field scaling of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Nonlinear 2D-TKE measurements of LAO at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. IFFT of three peaks and modeling. (a-c) IFFT of the 1.1, 0.86 and 0.36 THz peaks, respectively. (d) Upper panel: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    Nonlinear terahertz polaritonics in a quantum paraelectric,

    C. Shen, C. Verdi, S. Babkin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Alpich- shev, “Nonlinear terahertz polaritonics in a quantum paraelectric,” To be submitted

    work page

  2. [1]

    M. Liu, H. Y. Hwang, H. Tao, A. C. Strikwerda, K. Fan, G. R. Keiser, A. J. Sternbach, K. G. West, S. Kitti- watanakul, J. Lu,et al., Nature487, 345 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [2]

    X. Li, T. Qiu, J. Zhang, E. Baldini, J. Lu, A. M. Rappe, and K. A. Nelson, Science364, 1079 (2019)

    2019

  4. [3]

    S. Pal, N. Strkalj, C.-J. Yang, M. C. Weber, M. Trassin, M. Woerner, and M. Fiebig, Physical Review X11, 021023 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    B. Song, X. Yang, C. Sundahl, J.-H. Kang, M. Mootz, Y. Yao, I. Perakis, L. Luo, C. Eom, and J. Wang, Ultra- fast Science3, 0007 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Basini, M

    M. Basini, M. Pancaldi, B. Wehinger, M. Udina, V. Unikandanunni, T. Tadano, M. Hoffmann, A. Bal- atsky, and S. Bonetti, Nature628, 534 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    C. L. Johnson, B. E. Knighton, and J. A. Johnson, Phys- ical Review Letters122, 073901 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    H.-W. Lin, G. Mead, and G. A. Blake, Physical Review Letters129, 207401 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 27 references
  1. [8]

    T. G. Blank, K. A. Grishunin, K. Zvezdin, N. Hai, J. Wu, S.-H. Su, J.-C. Huang, A. Zvezdin, and A. V. Kimel, Physical Review Letters131, 026902 (2023)

    2023

  2. [9]

    X. Li, P. Peng, H. Dammak, G. Geneste, A. Akbarzadeh, S. Prosandeev, L. Bellaiche, and D. Talbayev, Physical Review B107, 064306 (2023)

    2023

  3. [10]

    Frenzel, M

    M. Frenzel, M. Cherasse, J. M. Urban, F. Wang, B. Xiang, L. Nest, L. Huber, L. Perfetti, M. Wolf, T. Kampfrath,et al., Science Advances9, eadg3856 (2023)

    2023

  4. [11]

    Kovalev, C

    S. Kovalev, C. Zhu, A. Reinold, M. Koch, Z. Wang, P. Pilch, A. Ghalgaoui, S. Duan, C. Li, J. Zhang,et al., Optics Letters50, 762 (2025)

    2025

  5. [12]

    Basini, V

    M. Basini, V. Unikandanunni, F. Gabriele, M. Cross, A. Derrico, A. Gray, M. Hoffmann, F. Forte, M. Cuoco, and S. Bonetti, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06748 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Hebling, G

    J. Hebling, G. Almasi, I. Z. Kozma, and J. Kuhl, Optics express10, 1161 (2002)

    2002

  7. [14]

    Hirori, F

    H. Hirori, F. Blanchard, K. Tanaka,et al., Applied Physics Letters98(2011)

    2011

  8. [15]

    E. K. Salje, M. Alexe, S. Kustov, M. C. Weber, J. Schiemer, G. F. Nataf, and J. Kreisel, Scientific Re- ports6, 27193 (2016)

    2016

  9. [16]

    C. M. Nelson, M. Spies, L. S. Abdallah, S. Zollner, Y. Xu, and H. Luo, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A 30, 061404 (2012)

    2012

  10. [17]

    M. S. Spencer, J. M. Urban, M. Frenzel, N. S. Mueller, O. Minakova, M. Wolf, A. Paarmann, and S. F. Maehrlein, Light: Science & Applications14, 69 (2025)

    2025

  11. [18]

    J. M. Urban, M. S. Spencer, M. Frenzel, G. T. Al- lard, M. Cherasse, C. B. Palacios, O. Minakova, E. B. Barros, L. Perfetti, S. Reich,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.02529 (2025)

    2025

  12. [19]

    Suemoto, and K

    J.Lu, X.Li, H.Y.Hwang, B.K.Ofori-Okai, T.Kurihara, T. Suemoto, and K. A. Nelson, Physical Review Letters 118, 207204 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Huber, S

    L. Huber, S. F. Maehrlein, F. Wang, Y. Liu, and X.- Y. Zhu, The Journal of Chemical Physics154, 094202 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    D. M. Juraschek and S. F. Maehrlein, Physical Review B 97, 174302 (2018). 7

    2018

  15. [23]

    S.Maehrlein, A.Paarmann, M.Wolf, andT.Kampfrath, Physical Review Letters119, 127402 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Khalsa, N

    G. Khalsa, N. A. Benedek, and J. Moses, Physical Re- view X11, 021067 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Abrashev, A

    M. Abrashev, A. Litvinchuk, M. Iliev, R. Meng, V. Popov, V. Ivanov, R. Chakalov, and C. Thomsen, Physical Review B59, 4146 (1999)

    1999

  18. [26]

    Ozaki, F

    T. Ozaki, F. Blanchard, G. Sharma, L. Razzari, X. Ropagnol, F. Vidal, R. Morandotti, J.-C. Kieffer, M. Reid, and F. Hegmann, Physics Procedia5, 119 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    M. J. Neugebauer, D. M. Juraschek, M. Savoini, P. En- geler, L. Boie, E. Abreu, N. A. Spaldin, and S. L. John- son, Physical Review Research3, 013126 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.