High-field moment polarization in the itinerant ferromagnet URhSi

D. Aoki; F. Hardy; J. Flouquet; T.D. Matsuda; W. Knafo

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 36 references

High-field moment polarization in the itinerant ferromagnet URhSi

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 The paper reports that in the itinerant ferromagnet URhSi, a magnetic field along the b axis drives a broad pseudo-metamagnetic crossover at about 30–40 T, seen as a step in magnetization and a maximum in resistivity.

desk verdict New high-field M and rho data for URhSi show a broad H||b anomaly, but the paper's own sample-quality caveat leaves the intrinsic pseudo-metamagnetic crossover unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01810 v2 pith:QYNAEXF3 submitted 2019-09-04 cond-mat.str-el

W. Knafo , T.D. Matsuda , F. Hardy , D. Aoki , J. Flouquet This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.str-el PACS 71.27.+a74.70.Tx75.30.Kz75.30.Mb

keywords URhSiitinerantferromagnetpseudo-metamagnetismhighmagneticfielduraniumcompoundsmagnetizationelectricalresistivityanisotropy

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

URhSi is an itinerant ferromagnet whose Curie temperature and magnetic anisotropy resemble the uranium ferromagnetic superconductors URhGe and UCoGe. This paper reports that for fields along the b axis, the magnetization develops a broad step and the resistivity a maximum between roughly 30 and 40 T, the signature of a pseudo-metamagnetic crossover. The same field region appears as a peak in the quadratic resistivity coefficient, indicating enhanced magnetic correlations. If the broad transition is intrinsic, URhSi belongs on the same high-field moment-polarization line as URhGe, UCoGe, and UTe2, making it a plausible superconductor once cleaner crystals are available.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pseudo-metamagnetic crossover: a smooth but marked increase in moment polarization with field, located by the kink in M/H, the maximum of the magnetization slope, the maximum of the resistivity, and the maximum of the resistivity coefficient A. Unlike a first-order metamagnetic transition, it has no sharp discontinuity. This field scale Hm carries the argument because it lets the authors compare URhSi with the superconducting relatives URhGe, UCoGe, and UTe2, and because the coincident A maximum links the crossover to enhanced magnetic fluctuations near a ferromagnetic quantum instability.

What would settle it

Measure the magnetization and resistivity for a field along the b axis using URhSi crystals with a residual resistivity ratio well above 10. If the anomaly remains a broad step at 30–40 T, the pseudo-metamagnetic crossover is intrinsic; if it sharpens into a first-order jump or moves substantially in field, the reported Hm was largely a sample-quality effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under a magnetic field applied along the intermediate hard axis b, URhSi shows a broad, continuous moment-polarization crossover at approximately 30–40 T. At 1.5 K, the magnetization passes through a kink at 24 T and a maximum slope at 32 T, while the resistivity peaks near 42 T and the quadratic resistivity coefficient A peaks near 38 T. All of these signatures decrease in field with increasing temperature and disappear above the Curie temperature of 10.5 K. The paper interprets this as pseudo-metamagnetism: a broader and weaker analogue of the sharp field-induced first-order transitions in URhGe at 12 T and UTe2 at 35 T, with UCoGe at about 50 T as an intermediate case.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the assumption that the broad magnetization step and resistivity maximum around 30–40 T are intrinsic to URhSi, not smeared-out versions of a sharper transition caused by crystal mosaicity or the sample's low residual resistivity ratio.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For fields along b, URhSi enters a high-field polarized state near 30–40 T, with the resistivity coefficient A peaking at the crossover as in URhGe and UTe2.
The crossover field falls as temperature rises and vanishes above TC = 10.5 K, tying the pseudo-metamagnetism to the ferromagnetic region of the phase diagram.
The relatively modest enhancement of A at Hm implies weaker magnetic fluctuations than in URhGe or UTe2, making field-induced superconductivity in the current crystals unlikely.
If higher-quality crystals, with residual resistivity ratio above roughly 10, show the same behavior, URhSi becomes a candidate for zero-field or field-reentrant superconductivity.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not extract it as a rule, but the common onset magnetization of about 0.3–0.4 Bohr magnetons per uranium atom at Hm across URhSi, URhGe, UCoGe, and UTe2 suggests a possible universal polarization threshold for hard-axis metamagnetism in this family.
If the broadness of the URhSi anomaly is caused by crystal mosaicity, better crystals could reveal a sharper or even first-order transition, which would change both the assigned value of Hm and the strength of the comparison with URhGe and UTe2.
The absence of superconductivity in URhSi may be a sample-quality effect rather than an intrinsic electronic property; growing cleaner single crystals is a direct next step that the paper explicitly calls for.
Uniaxial pressure or chemical substitution that tunes Hm toward zero in URhSi, as pressure does in URhGe, could test whether a vanishing pseudo-metamagnetic scale is sufficient to induce superconductivity.

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 genuinely new content is high-field magnetization and resistivity data on URhSi (up to roughly 53–58 T) along all three axes, plus the field-dependent A(H) from rho(T^2) fits and the H||b phase diagram. Tateiwa et al. had already reported part of the magnetization anisotropy, but the resistivity, the A(H) analysis, and the comparative compilation with URhGe, UCoGe, and UTe2 are new. Second, the paper does not fully establish that the broad H||b anomaly is an intrinsic pseudo-metamagnetic crossover. The stress-test note has the right concern, and the authors effectively admit the same in Section IV.

What the paper does well is straightforward. The raw data in Figures 1 and 2 directly support a broad step in M(H) and a broad maximum in rho(H) for H||b, with a consistent temperature evolution. The authors do not overclaim superconductivity, and they explicitly flag the low crystal quality (RRR ~2.5) and the possible role of mosaicity. The only fitted quantity, the A coefficient, is used for the fluctuation interpretation but does not define H_m, so there is no circularity problem. The citation pattern looks reasonable: prior magnetization work is cited, conflicting anisotropy reports are acknowledged, and the comparison to URhGe and UTe2 is framed as suggestive rather than definitive.

The soft spots are real but proportionate. The load-bearing ambiguity is whether the broadness is intrinsic. With RRR ~2.5, a mosaic-averaged sharp transition could easily produce a broad M step and a rounded rho maximum. The four criteria used for H_m—M/H kink at 24 T, dM/dH maximum at 32 T, A(H) maximum at 38 T, rho maximum at 42 T—span a wide range, which is more consistent with a gradual polarization process than with a well-defined crossover. The paper's suggestion that the absence of a chi(T) maximum supports intrinsic broadness is a reasonable hypothesis, not evidence. If the broadness turns out to be extrinsic, the specific "30–40 T" value and the quantitative comparison with sharp transitions in URhGe (12 T) and UTe2 (35 T) lose force. Missing error bars in the figures are a minor but real omission.

This is a useful comparative experimental paper for specialists in U-based ferromagnets and high-field studies. It is not transformative, but it adds a data point to a small and active family. I would send it to peer review. The right outcome would be publication after the authors either strengthen the case for intrinsic behavior with better crystals or controlled orientation checks, or reframe the result as a broad field-induced moment polarization without claiming a well-defined crossover. The paper deserves referee time because it is honest, the measurements are difficult, and the comparative context is valuable.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports pulsed-field magnetization and resistivity measurements on single-crystal URhSi in fields up to 58 T applied along the three orthorhombic axes, with emphasis on H||b. At low temperature, M(H) along b shows a broad step characterized by a kink in M/H at 24 T and a maximum of dM/dH at 32 T, whereas rho(H) shows a broad maximum at 42 T and the quadratic resistivity coefficient A peaks near 38 T. The authors interpret these features as a pseudo-metamagnetic crossover with a mean characteristic field Hm of approximately 30-40 T, compare it with the analogous phenomena in URhGe, UCoGe, and UTe2, and suggest that URhSi could become superconducting if higher-quality crystals were available.

Significance. If the pseudo-metamagnetic crossover is intrinsic, the paper establishes URhSi as a further member of the U-based Ising-type ferromagnet family in which a hard-axis magnetic field induces a broad moment-polarization process, and it strengthens the phenomenological comparison of Hm and of the A(H) maximum across URhGe, UCoGe, and UTe2. The strengths of the manuscript are the direct multi-observable high-field data up to 58 T, the explicit field-temperature phase diagram, and the fact that the fitted A coefficient is not used to define Hm, so the central observation is not circular. However, because the central claim depends on distinguishing intrinsic from mosaic-broadened behavior, and because the paper itself leaves this distinction unresolved, the quantitative significance of the reported Hm and of the comparison with the sharp transitions in URhGe and UTe2 is currently limited.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Figures 1-3 and Table I] The characteristic field Hm is assigned as '30-40 T' although the four defining criteria give 24 T (kink in M/H), 32 T (maximum of dM/dH), 38 T (maximum of A), and 42 T (maximum of rho). The manuscript does not state how the mean field is defined, nor does it provide error bars or a selection criterion for the quoted range. This spread is exactly what is expected if the response is a rounded, sample-broadened feature, so the quantitative value of Hm is not established to the precision implied by the comparison with URhGe (12 T) and UTe2 (35 T).
[Section IV] The paper states that the residual resistivity ratio is only about 2.5 and that 'it is difficult to infer whether the quality of the URhSi crystals is related - or not - with the broad nature of the pseudo-metamagnetic crossover reported here.' This unresolved extrinsic-broadening alternative is load-bearing for the central claim that URhSi exhibits an intrinsic pseudo-metamagnetic crossover at approximately 30-40 T. The revision should either provide additional evidence against mosaic-dominated broadening, for example angular-dependence measurements, characterization of the mosaic spread, or a quantitative model of the orientation distribution, or it should explicitly reduce the central claim to the observation of a broad field-induced anomaly whose intrinsic status is not yet established.
[Section IV, Figure 5(a)] The statement that metamagnetism or pseudo-metamagnetism 'occurs in the four compounds' and 'its onset coincides with a low-temperature magnetization reaching M approx 0.3-0.4 muB/U' is presented as a common feature. For URhSi, the broad step makes the onset ill-defined, and no quantitative onset magnetization is extracted or shown for URhSi in the figure. This coincidence is therefore not demonstrated for the present material and should be either quantified with a defined criterion or presented as a qualitative resemblance.

minor comments (6)

[Sections III and IV] The word 'sensibility' appears where 'sensitivity' is meant; since the discussion of sample orientation and mosaicity is important, the wording should be corrected.
[Section II] The magnetization and resistivity samples have different dimensions, and no x-ray rocking-curve data or mosaic spread are reported for either sample; providing this information would directly inform the extrinsic-broadening discussion in Section IV.
[Section III, Figure 4] The extraction of A from the fits rho = rho0 + A T^2 under T <= 4 K is not accompanied by error bars or a statement of the fit range and number of points; such details are needed to assess the significance of the A(H) maximum near 38 T.
[Table I and Section IV] URhSi is listed with a dash for Tmax_chi, and the text says that no maximum in chi(T) is observed (Ref. [25]); since this non-observation is used to rationalize the broad crossover, it would help to show the chi(T) data or to specify the reference figure.
[References] References 9 and 14 are cited as arXiv preprints; if published versions are now available, those should be cited instead.
[Figure 1] The inset showing M/H versus H for H||b is not legible in the provided version; the axis labels and the location of the 24 T kink should be clearly visible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claimed crossover at Hm ~ 30–40 T is a descriptive label for directly measured magnetization and resistivity anomalies, not a prediction derived from fitted parameters or prior work.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental characterization: for H || b, URhSi shows a broad pseudo-metamagnetic crossover at mu0Hm ~ 30–40 T, evidenced by a broad step in M(H) and a maximum in rho(H). These are direct measurements under pulsed fields. The value Hm is not derived from a model; it is introduced as a 'mean' characteristic field summarizing several independently read criteria (kink in M/H at 24 T, maximum of dM/dH at 32 T, maximum of A at 38 T, maximum of rho at 42 T), and the paper explicitly notes that the different criteria characterize the same broad process. No equation reduces Hm to a fitted parameter, and the only fit, rho = rho0 + A T^2, is used qualitatively to support a fluctuation interpretation without defining Hm. The comparison with URhGe, UCoGe, and UTe2 is interpretive and does not supply the value of Hm. Self-citations to earlier work (e.g., Ref. [25] for the absence of a chi(T) maximum) are used to contextualize broadness, but the core observation does not depend on those citations. The unresolved question of whether crystal mosaicity or low sample quality (RRR ~ 2.5) broadens the anomaly is a validity risk, not a circularity: treating the step as an intrinsic crossover is an assumption, but it is not derived from the claim itself. No circular step can be quoted with a specific reduction, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central observation uses no free parameters in a model sense; the A coefficient is a fitted transport coefficient used as supporting evidence. The load-bearing assumptions are the Fermi-liquid fit, the Kadowaki-Woods analogy, the offset correction, the unification of four field criteria into one crossover, and the intrinsic nature of the broadness.

free parameters (1)

A coefficient (quadratic resistivity) = varies with field; maximum near mu_0 H = 38 T at 1.5 K (not tabulated)
Obtained from fitting rho = rho0 + A T^2 to data below 4 K (Figure 4a). Used only to support the fluctuation interpretation; the central pseudo-metamagnetism claim does not depend on it.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Fermi-liquid behavior rho = rho0 + A T^2 holds below 4 K in URhSi over the full field range.
Invoked in Section III to extract A(H) from resistivity versus T^2 plots; if the T^2 law does not hold, the A peak near Hm is not evidence for effective-mass enhancement.
domain assumption Kadowaki-Woods proportionality A proportional to m*^2 and A as a proxy for magnetic fluctuations.
Used in Section IV to interpret the A maximum as enhanced effective mass and quantum fluctuations; the relation is empirical and not demonstrated for URhSi.
domain assumption The pulsed-field magnetization offset correction using low-field MPMS data is valid and does not distort the H || b step.
Section II states pulsed-field data were adjusted to MPMS data to remove an offset; if the correction is not a constant, the shape of M(H) at high fields could be altered.
domain assumption The four field criteria (kink in M/H at 24 T, max slope in M at 32 T, max rho at 42 T, max A at 38 T) all correspond to the same underlying polarization process.
Section III assigns the 'mean' characteristic field 30-40 T to a single pseudo-metamagnetic crossover even though the individual criteria are not equal; if they mark distinct phenomena, the phase diagram in Figure 3 would be misleading.
domain assumption The observed broadness of the crossover is intrinsic to URhSi and not caused by crystal mosaicity or sample quality.
Section IV notes low residual resistivity ratio (2.5) and says it is difficult to infer whether the broad nature is related to crystal quality; the comparative conclusions about magnetic fluctuations depend on this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-field moment polarization in the itinerant ferromagnet URhSi." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QYNAEXF3

@misc{pith2026190901810,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-field moment polarization in the itinerant ferromagnet URhSi},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QYNAEXF3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01810}
}

abstract

We report a high-magnetic-field study of the itinerant ferromagnet URhSi. Magnetization and electrical resistivity were measured under magnetic fields $\mu_0H$ up to 58~T applied along the directions $\mathbf{a}$, $\mathbf{b}$, and $\mathbf{c}$ of the orthorhombic structure and temperatures $T$ ranging from 1.5 to 50 K. For $\mathbf{H}\parallel\mathbf{b}$, pseudo-metamagnetism at $\mu_0H_m\simeq30-40$~T is associated with a broad step in the magnetization and a maximum in the resistivity. The properties of URhSi are discussed and compared with those of the isostructural superconducting ferromagnets URhGe and UCoGe and of the superconducting paramagnet UTe$_2$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01810 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** presents the low-temperature (T = 1.5 K) magnetization of URhSi in a magnetic field applied along its three main crystallographic directions a, b, and c. Similarly to the recent report on URhSi in Ref. [23], and to the cases of URhGe [24] and UCoGe [20], a is found to be the hardest magnetic axis, while c is the easy magnetic axis. However, a different magnetic anisotropy, with b being the hardest magnetic axis inst… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Electrical resistivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. (a) Electrical resistivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Magnetization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

Pfleiderer ,\ @noop journal journal Rev

author author C. Pfleiderer ,\ @noop journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 81 ,\ pages 1551 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

work page 2009
[2]

Johnston ,\ @noop journal journal Adv

author author D. Johnston ,\ @noop journal journal Adv. Phys. \ volume 59 ,\ pages 803 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

work page 2010
[3]

Lefebvre , author P

author author S. Lefebvre , author P. Wzietek , author S. Brown , author C. Bourbonnais , author D. J\'erome , author C. M\'ezi\`ere , author M. Fourmigu\'e , \ and\ author P. Batail ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.5420 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 85 ,\ pages 5420 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.85.5420
[4]

Aoki , author K

author author D. Aoki , author K. Ishida , \ and\ author J. Flouquet ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of the Physical Society of Japan \ volume 88 ,\ pages 022001 ( year 2019 a ) NoStop

work page 2019
[5]

Aoki , author A

author author D. Aoki , author A. Huxley , author E. Ressouche , author D. Braithwaite , author J. Flouquet , author J.-P. \ Brison , author E. Lhotel , \ and\ author C. Paulsen ,\ @noop journal journal Nature \ volume 413 ,\ pages 613 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

work page 2001
[6]

orlach , \ and\ author H. v. \ L\

author author N. T. \ Huy , author A. Gasparini , author D. E. \ de Nijs , author Y. Huang , author J. C. P. \ Klaasse , author T. Gortenmulder , author A. de Visser , author A. Hamann , author T. G\"orlach , \ and\ author H. v. \ L\"ohneysen ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.067006 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 99 ,\ pages 067006 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.99.067006
[7]

author author S. S. \ Saxena , author P. Agarwal , author K. Ahilan , author F. M. \ Grosche , author R. K. W. \ Haselwimmer , author M. J. \ Steiner , author E. Pugh , author I. R. \ Walker , author S. R. \ Julian , author P. Monthoux , author G. G. \ Lonzarich , author A. Huxley , author I. Sheikin , author D. Braithwaite , \ and\ author J. Flouquet ,\ ...

work page 2000
[8]

Akazawa , author H

author author T. Akazawa , author H. Hidaka , author T. Fujiwara , author T. C. \ Kobayashi , author E. Yamamoto , author Y. Haga , author R. Settai , \ and\ author Y. \= O nuki ,\ http://stacks.iop.org/0953-8984/16/i=4/a=L02 journal journal J. Phys.: Condens. Matter \ volume 16 ,\ pages L29 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

work page 2004

Show all 36 references

[9]

Ran , author C

author author S. Ran , author C. Eckberg , author Q.-P. \ Ding , author Y. Furukawa , author T. Metz , author S. R. \ Saha , author I.-L. \ Liu , author M. Zic , author H. Kim , author J. Paglione , \ and\ author N. P. \ Butch ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:1811.11808 \ ( a ) NoStop

arXiv
[10]

Aoki , author A

author author D. Aoki , author A. Nakamura , author F. Honda , author D. Li , author Y. Homma , author Y. Shimizu , author Y. J. \ Sato , author G. Knebel , author J.-P. \ Brison , author A. Pourret , author D. Braithwaite , author G. Lapertot , author Q. Niu , author M. Vališ...

2019
[11]

L \'e vy , author I

author author F. L \'e vy , author I. Sheikin , author B. Grenier , \ and\ author A. D. \ Huxley ,\ 10.1126/science.1115498 journal journal Science \ volume 309 ,\ pages 1343 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

2005 doi
[12]

Aoki , author T

author author D. Aoki , author T. D. \ Matsuda , author V. Taufour , author E. Hassinger , author G. Knebel , \ and\ author J. Flouquet ,\ 10.1143/JPSJ.78.113709 journal journal J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \ volume 78 ,\ pages 113709 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

doi
[13]

Knebel , author W

author author G. Knebel , author W. Knafo , author A. Pourret , author Q. Niu , author M. Vališka , author D. Braithwaite , author G. Lapertot , author M. Nardone , author A. Zitouni , author S. Mishra , author I. Sheikin , author G. Seyfarth , author J.-P. \ Brison , author D...

2019
[14]

Ran , author I.-L

author author S. Ran , author I.-L. \ Liu , author Y. S. \ Eo , author D. J. \ Campbell , author P. Neves , author W. T. \ Fuhrman , author S. R. \ Saha , author C. Eckberg , author H. Kim , author J. Paglione , author D. Graf , author J. Singleton , \ and\ author N. P. \ Butc...

1905 arXiv
[15]

Sheikin , author A

author author I. Sheikin , author A. Huxley , author D. Braithwaite , author J. P. \ Brison , author S. Watanabe , author K. Miyake , \ and\ author J. Flouquet ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.64.220503 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 64 ,\ pages 220503(R) ( year 2001 ) NoStop

doi
[16]

Miyake , author D

author author A. Miyake , author D. Aoki , \ and\ author J. Flouquet ,\ 10.1143/JPSJ.78.063703 journal journal J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \ volume 78 ,\ pages 063703 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

2009 doi
[17]

Braithwaite , author D

author author D. Braithwaite , author D. Aoki , author J.-P. \ Brison , author J. Flouquet , author G. Knebel , author A. Nakamura , \ and\ author A. Pourret ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.037001 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 120 ,\ pages 037001 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

doi
[18]

Knafo , author M

author author W. Knafo , author M. Vališka , author D. Braithwaite , author G. Lapertot , author G. Knebel , author A. Pourret , author J.-P. \ Brison , author J. Flouquet , \ and\ author D. Aoki ,\ @noop journal journal J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \ volume 88 ,\ pages 063705 ( year 20...

2019
[19]

Miyake , author Y

author author A. Miyake , author Y. Shimizu , author Y. J. \ Sato , author D. Li , author A. Nakamura , author Y. Homma , author F. Honda , author J. Flouquet , author M. Tokunaga , \ and\ author D. Aoki ,\ @noop journal journal J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \ volume 88 ,\ pages 063706 (...

2019
[20]

Knafo , author T

author author W. Knafo , author T. D. \ Matsuda , author D. Aoki , author F. Hardy , author G. W. \ Scheerer , author G. Ballon , author M. Nardone , author A. Zitouni , author C. Meingast , \ and\ author J. Flouquet ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.86.184416 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \...

doi
[21]

Tran , author R

author author V. Tran , author R. Troc , \ and\ author G. Andr \'e ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-8853(98)00074-2 journal journal J. Magn. Magn. Mater. \ volume 186 ,\ pages 81 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

1998 doi
[22]

Proke s , author A

author author K. Proke s , author A. Andreev , author F. Honda , \ and\ author V. Sechovsk \'y ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-8853(02)01461-0 journal journal J. Magn. Magn. Mater. \ volume 261 ,\ pages 131 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

2003 doi
[23]

Tateiwa , author Y

author author N. Tateiwa , author Y. Haga , \ and\ author E. Yamamoto ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 99 ,\ pages 094417 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

2019
[24]

Hardy , author D

author author F. Hardy , author D. Aoki , author C. Meingast , author P. Schweiss , author P. Burger , author H. v. L\"ohneysen , \ and\ author J. Flouquet ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.195107 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 83 ,\ pages 195107 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

doi
[25]

author author T. D. \ Matsuda , author H. Kotegawa , author D. Aoki , author V. Taufour , author E. Hassinger , author G. Knebel , author D. Braithwaite , author B. Salce , author Z. Fisk , \ and\ author J. Flouquet ,\ @noop journal to be published \ NoStop
[26]

Honda , author A

journal author author F. Honda , author A. V. \ Andreev , author V. Sechovsk \'y , \ and\ author K. Proke s ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4526(02)02094-X journal journal Physica B \ volume 329-333 ,\ pages 486 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

2003 doi
[27]

Kadowaki \ and\ author S

author author K. Kadowaki \ and\ author S. Woods ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-1098(86)90785-4 journal journal Solid State Commun. \ volume 58 ,\ pages 507 ( year 1986 ) NoStop

1986 doi
[28]

Knafo , author S

author author W. Knafo , author S. Raymond , author P. Lejay , \ and\ author J. Flouquet ,\ @noop journal journal Nature Physics \ volume 5 ,\ pages 753 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

2009
[29]

Tokunaga , author D

author author Y. Tokunaga , author D. Aoki , author H. Mayaffre , author S. Kr\"amer , author M.-H. \ Julien , author C. Berthier , author M. Horvati c \' c , author H. Sakai , author S. Kambe , \ and\ author S. Araki ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.216401 journal journal Phys. Rev...

doi
[30]

Miyake , author D

author author A. Miyake , author D. Aoki , \ and\ author J. Flouquet ,\ 10.1143/JPSJ.77.094709 journal journal J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \ volume 77 ,\ pages 094709 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

2008 doi
[31]

author author A. D. \ Huxley , author S. Raymond , \ and\ author E. Ressouche ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 91 ,\ pages 207201 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

2003
[32]

Haslbeck , author S

author author F. Haslbeck , author S. S\"aubert , author M. Seifert , author C. Franz , author M. Schulz , author A. Heinemann , author T. Keller , author P. Das , author J. D. \ Thompson , author E. D. \ Bauer , author C. Pfleiderer , \ and\ author M. Janoschek ,\ @noop journ...

2019
[33]

Stock , author D

author author C. Stock , author D. A. \ Sokolov , author P. Bourges , author P. H. \ Tobash , author K. Gofryk , author F. Ronning , author E. D. \ Bauer , author K. C. \ Rule , \ and\ author A. D. \ Huxley ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 107 ,\ pages 187202...

2011
[34]

Aoki , author W

author author D. Aoki , author W. Knafo , \ and\ author I. Sheikin ,\ @noop journal journal C. R. Physique \ volume 14 ,\ pages 53 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

2013
[35]

Posp\' s il , author Y

author author J. Posp\' s il , author Y. Haga , author Y. Kohama , author A. Miyake , author S. Kambe , author N. Tateiwa , author M. Vali s s ka , author P. Proschek , author J. Prokle s s ka , author V. Sechovsk\'y , author M. Tokunaga , author K. Kindo , author A. Matsuo , ...

doi
[36]

Posp\' s il , author Y

author author J. Posp\' s il , author Y. Haga , author S. Kambe , author Y. Tokunaga , author N. Tateiwa , author D. Aoki , author F. Honda , author A. Nakamura , author Y. Homma , author E. Yamamoto , \ and\ author T. Yamamura ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.95.155138 journal journal Phy...

doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Pfleiderer ,\ @noop journal journal Rev

author author C. Pfleiderer ,\ @noop journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 81 ,\ pages 1551 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

work page 2009

[2] [2]

Johnston ,\ @noop journal journal Adv

author author D. Johnston ,\ @noop journal journal Adv. Phys. \ volume 59 ,\ pages 803 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

work page 2010

[3] [3]

Lefebvre , author P

author author S. Lefebvre , author P. Wzietek , author S. Brown , author C. Bourbonnais , author D. J\'erome , author C. M\'ezi\`ere , author M. Fourmigu\'e , \ and\ author P. Batail ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.5420 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 85 ,\ pages 5420 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.85.5420

[4] [4]

Aoki , author K

author author D. Aoki , author K. Ishida , \ and\ author J. Flouquet ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of the Physical Society of Japan \ volume 88 ,\ pages 022001 ( year 2019 a ) NoStop

work page 2019

[5] [5]

Aoki , author A

author author D. Aoki , author A. Huxley , author E. Ressouche , author D. Braithwaite , author J. Flouquet , author J.-P. \ Brison , author E. Lhotel , \ and\ author C. Paulsen ,\ @noop journal journal Nature \ volume 413 ,\ pages 613 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

work page 2001

[6] [6]

orlach , \ and\ author H. v. \ L\

author author N. T. \ Huy , author A. Gasparini , author D. E. \ de Nijs , author Y. Huang , author J. C. P. \ Klaasse , author T. Gortenmulder , author A. de Visser , author A. Hamann , author T. G\"orlach , \ and\ author H. v. \ L\"ohneysen ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.067006 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 99 ,\ pages 067006 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.99.067006

[7] [7]

author author S. S. \ Saxena , author P. Agarwal , author K. Ahilan , author F. M. \ Grosche , author R. K. W. \ Haselwimmer , author M. J. \ Steiner , author E. Pugh , author I. R. \ Walker , author S. R. \ Julian , author P. Monthoux , author G. G. \ Lonzarich , author A. Huxley , author I. Sheikin , author D. Braithwaite , \ and\ author J. Flouquet ,\ ...

work page 2000

[8] [8]

Akazawa , author H

author author T. Akazawa , author H. Hidaka , author T. Fujiwara , author T. C. \ Kobayashi , author E. Yamamoto , author Y. Haga , author R. Settai , \ and\ author Y. \= O nuki ,\ http://stacks.iop.org/0953-8984/16/i=4/a=L02 journal journal J. Phys.: Condens. Matter \ volume 16 ,\ pages L29 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

work page 2004