Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Jsymm: A Python package for symmetry analysis of exchange tensors in magnetic Hamiltonians

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Given a CIF file, Jsymm writes out the most general symmetry-allowed exchange tensors for any magnetic bond and every bond symmetry-related to it, reducing the number of independent parameters a first-principles calculation must evaluate.

desk verdict A genuinely useful symmetry-analysis tool with a real input-validation gap: it works correctly for conventional standard-setting cells but the abstract promises any standard CIF, and primitive or non-standard cells can silently produce wrong tensors. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05918 v1 pith:UUOMW27P submitted 2026-08-06 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.comp-ph

A.S. Sergeev , S.V. Streltsov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.comp-ph
keywords crystalsymmetryexchangetensorDzyaloshinskii-MoriyainteractionanisotropicspinHamiltonianrepresentationtheorysymmetry-adaptedtensorsmagneticmaterials
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

Jsymm is a Python package that takes standard crystallographic data (a CIF file) and, for any bond between magnetic ions, symbolically derives the most general exchange tensor allowed by crystal symmetry. It treats both the antisymmetric Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya vector and the symmetric anisotropic exchange matrix, and it also produces the tensors for every other bond related to the chosen one by symmetry. This matters because ab initio calculations of exchange interactions are expensive, especially when spin–orbit coupling is included; using symmetry constraints means only a few independent parameters need to be computed, not all nine components per bond. The authors demonstrate the tool on La$_2$CuO$_4$ and $\alpha$-Fe$_2$O$_3$, reproducing known symmetry constraints and exposing additional relations between exchange tensors of different bonds.

What carries the argument

The central object is the exchange tensor $J$ for a bond between two magnetic ions, decomposed into a symmetric part $\Gamma$ and an antisymmetric part represented by the Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya vector $D$. The machinery is the action of the crystal point group on bonds: a bond's stabilizer consists of symmetries that map the bond to itself up to lattice translation and possibly atom exchange (with $D$ changing sign on exchange), and the bond's orbit consists of all symmetry-equivalent bonds. For a given bond, the stabilizer's representation $\rho$ on the space of tensors is constructed, and the projection operator $\mathrm{Proj}_1 = \frac{1}{|\mathrm{St}|}\sum_{g\in\mathrm{St}} \rho(g)$ onto the trivial representation subspace yields a basis of symmetry-allowed tensors. The orbit then determines the relation $J_{g\cdot b} = R_g J_b R_g^T$, so a single computation for one representative bond supplies the tensors for the entire orbit.

What would settle it

Run Jsymm on a CIF with a deliberately distorted cell (for example, displace one atom by $10^{-4}$ Å) while varying the tolerance parameter from $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-3}$ Å; if the output tensor forms change for tolerances straddling the distortion scale, the claim of deriving the most general symmetry-compatible tensors from the CIF alone is tolerance-dependent. Alternatively, compute the full exchange tensor ab initio for a bond whose symmetry forbids a specific component and check that the forbidden component vanishes within numerical noise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for any bond formed by magnetic ions, Jsymm derives the most general symmetry-compatible form of both the antisymmetric DMI tensor and the anisotropic symmetric exchange tensor, together with the corresponding tensors for all bonds in the same symmetry orbit. The method formalizes two kinds of constraints: the stabilizer subgroup of a bond—those crystal symmetries that map the bond to itself, possibly flipping the two atoms—restricts the form of the bond's own tensor (recovering the Moriya rules), while the orbit relations impose compatibility conditions between tensors of different bonds. Technically, the stabilizer's linear representation on the space of $3\times 3$ (anti)symmetric matrices is projected onto the trivial representation subspace, yielding a symbolic basis of allowed matrices; then the orbit condition $J_{g\cdot b}=R_g J_b R_g^T$ fixes the tensors for all symmetry-related bonds. The authors verify the method on La$_2$CuO$_4$ and $\alpha$-Fe$_2$O$_3$, matching earlier microscopic calculations and revealing that even bonds with trivial stabilizer can have their tensors strongly constrained by orbit relations.

Load-bearing premise

The entire analysis assumes that the space group detected from the input CIF—using a numerical tolerance of $10^{-5}$ Å—is the true symmetry of the crystal; if the CIF contains a slightly distorted cell, the detected group can change, and with it the set of allowed exchange tensors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Density functional theory or other first-principles calculations of exchange parameters would need to evaluate only the independent symmetry-allowed components per bond orbit, substantially reducing computational cost when spin–orbit coupling is included.
  • The resulting tensors are guaranteed to be consistent with crystal symmetry, preventing unphysical outcomes that arise when fitted or computed tensors violate symmetry.
  • The same stabilizer-and-orbit machinery applies to any bond-dependent bilinear spin Hamiltonian term, including Kitaev-type anisotropic exchanges, provided the spin transformation rules are specified.
  • A bond whose stabilizer is trivial still receives constraints through its orbit, so users must treat the entire orbit as a unit rather than analyzing bonds individually.
  • The package's web and library interfaces allow symmetry analysis to be embedded directly into automated computational workflows for magnetic materials.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the detected space group depends on the numerical tolerance used when parsing the CIF, a slightly distorted cell could silently change the resulting tensor forms; systematic tolerance-sensitivity checks would tell users when the CIF is too imprecise for reliable symmetry analysis.
  • The same projection-operator method generalizes to other tensor-valued observables that transform under the point group, such as $g$-tensors, hyperfine interactions, and magnetoelectric coupling coefficients.
  • The orbit relations offer a built-in consistency test for ab initio calculations: compute the independent components on one representative bond and compare the predicted tensor of a symmetry-related bond against a direct calculation on that bond.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents Jsymm, a Python package that derives symmetry-allowed exchange tensors (Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya vector and symmetric anisotropic exchange matrix) for interatomic bonds in crystals. Starting from a CIF file, the package uses spglib to identify the space group, defines bonds up to lattice translations, computes each bond's stabilizer and orbit, constructs the stabilizer representation on the space of exchange tensors, and projects onto the trivial representation to obtain symbolic tensor forms. The paper gives the mathematical algorithm, implementation details, usage modes, and validation on La2CuO4 and alpha-Fe2O3, where it reproduces known symmetry constraints and reports additional inter-bond relations. The code is available on GitHub and includes a web interface.

Significance. If the implementation is correct, Jsymm fills a practical gap by automating a symmetry analysis that is otherwise performed ad hoc for each material. The derivation in Sec. 2 is standard and appears sound, and the two test cases reproduce established constraints, lending credibility to the core method. The availability of an open-source, documented tool with multiple interfaces should be useful to the DFT and magnetism communities. The principal weakness is that the announced generality with respect to input CIF files is not met by the implementation, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 and Abstract] The abstract and Program Summary state that the package accepts standard CIF files and produces tensors for any bond. However, Sec. 3.1 restricts the exact conversion of symmetry rotation matrices to entries in {0, ±1, ±1/2, ±√3/2}, justified by the assumption of a conventional unit cell in the standard crystallographic setting. This excludes many standard CIF files, including primitive cells of centered lattices and primitive rhombohedral cells (a common choice for alpha-Fe2O3), as well as non-cubic conventional cells in which the Cartesian axes are not all aligned with the crystallographic axes. For such inputs, spglib can return Cartesian matrices with other algebraic entries (e.g., sqrt(2)/2 for a 4-fold axis not along a cell axis, or cosines of a monoclinic angle). The paper neither converts such cells to a conventional setting nor detects and reports the unsupported values. If the implementation approximates these entries by the allowed set, it will produce incorrect rotation matrices and hence silently wrong exchange tensors. This contradicts the advertised functionality and is a load-bearing gap. Please either implement a robust conversion to a conventional cell or a Cartesian frame in which the rotations take the allowed values, add an explicit error when unsupported entries appear, or restrict the claims in the abstract and Program Summary accordingly.
  2. [Sec. 5.2] The comparison to Ref. [32] is described only as removing the discrepancy by rotating the Cartesian system by pi/12 about the z axis and 'selecting an appropriate bond.' The specific bond, the sign of the rotation, and the resulting matrix elements are not given, so the validation cannot be reproduced independently. Please provide the missing details or a script that generates Eq. (33) and the corresponding rotated matrices, or state more explicitly which bond and rotation orientation are used.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] The statement that matrix elements can only take values in {0, ±1, ±1/2, ±√3/2} should be qualified to a Cartesian frame where the crystallographic axes are orthogonal to the rotation axes; it is not generally true even for conventional cells of monoclinic or triclinic crystals, nor for all hexagonal settings if the Cartesian frame is chosen differently.
  2. [Sec. 5.2] The rotation U_alpha is not defined precisely; the text 'by pi/12 about the z axis' does not specify the sign of rotation or the coordinate frame in which the rotation is applied.
  3. [Sec. 7] There is a typo: 'Analisysofexchangetensors' should be 'Analysis of exchange tensors'.
  4. [Sec. 5.1] The phrase 'point nearly two the second nearest neighbor Cu ions' should likely read 'point nearly to the second nearest neighbor Cu ions'.
  5. [Sec. 6] The claim that the code 'can reduce computational time by orders of magnitude' is not supported by timing data or complexity analysis; please add benchmarks or soften the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exchange-tensor forms follow from crystal symmetry via standard projection-operator algebra; literature comparisons are checks, not inputs.

full rationale

Jsymm's central derivation starts from a CIF file, obtains the space group via spglib, constructs the point-group action on bond classes, builds the stabilizer representation on the DMI and symmetric-tensor vector spaces, and computes the trivial-representation invariant subspace with projection operators (Secs. 2.2-2.3 and 3.4). Every output tensor is a linear consequence of the symmetry operations and the definition of the exchange Hamiltonian; no component of the target tensors is fitted, imported from the cited benchmark papers, or assumed in the input. The La2CuO4 and alpha-Fe2O3 comparisons (Secs. 5.1-5.2) are after-the-fact validation against independent calculations and do not enter the derivation. The only self-citations (e.g., Refs. [8,25] in the test-case discussion) are agreement checks, not load-bearing premises. The Sec. 3.1 restriction that Cartesian rotation-matrix entries are exactly of the form 0, ±1, ±1/2, ±√3/2 under a conventional standard-setting cell is a stated implementation assumption; it may limit the class of CIFs handled correctly, but it is not circular because it does not pre-suppose the exchange-tensor answers. Likewise, the sym_tolerance caveat is a robustness warning, not a feedback of the output into the input. Hence no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on standard group representation theory applied to the axial-vector transformation of spins, plus assumptions about the crystallographic input (conventional cell, reliable space-group detection). No free parameters are fitted to data; the only tunable numerical control is sym_tolerance, which can affect the detected symmetry group.

free parameters (1)
  • sym_tolerance = 1e-5 Å (default)
    Numerical tolerance used by spglib to decide whether atomic coordinates coincide after applying symmetry operations. It can change the detected space group in edge cases, which would change the computed tensors (Sec. 3.1).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Spins transform as axial vectors under crystal symmetry: g·S = det(R_g) R_g S (Eq. 4)
    Standard physics for magnetic moments under proper and improper rotations; invoked in Sec. 2.1 as the basis for the tensor transformation rules.
  • domain assumption The exchange interaction between two spins is a general bilinear tensor form S_i^T J S_j (Eq. 2), decomposable into symmetric and antisymmetric parts
    Assumed as the starting Hamiltonian. The entire analysis concerns the restrictions symmetry places on this tensor.
  • standard math Symmetry action on the Hamiltonian is defined by Eq. (5): [g·H](S_i,S_j) = H(g^{-1}S_i, g^{-1}S_j)
    Definition of a group action on functions; standard and used to derive Eq. (10).
  • domain assumption Bonds related by lattice translations are equivalent (Eq. 16), and the point group action on these equivalence classes is well-defined
    Necessary to work with a finite set of bonds. The paper argues the action is well-defined because lattice translations are 'modded out' at the right stage.
  • domain assumption The crystal structure is specified in a conventional unit cell in standard crystallographic setting, so rotation matrix elements belong to {0, ±1, ±1/2, ±√3/2}
    Assumed in Sec. 3.1 to allow exact symbolic computation. If the input cell is non-conventional, the claimed exactness of the matrix elements may fail.
  • domain assumption The stabilizer is defined modulo bond orientation (Eq. 18) and orbit elements are considered modulo orientation to apply the orbit-stabilizer theorem
    A modeling choice that identifies a bond with its flip for symmetry constraints, while keeping track of the sign for DMI. Standard in this context.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Jsymm: A Python package for symmetry analysis of exchange tensors in magnetic Hamiltonians." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UUOMW27P

@misc{pith2026260805918,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Jsymm: A Python package for symmetry analysis of exchange tensors in magnetic Hamiltonians},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UUOMW27P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05918}
}
abstract

Symmetries of a crystal often restrict its physical properties. In particular, they determine possible forms of the tensors that describe interatomic exchange interaction, which governs a wide range of magnetic phenomena. Computationally demanding first-principles calculations of the exchange tensors can be greatly simplified by taking the symmetry constraints into account. Here, we present Jsymm, a Python package that derives the most general symmetry-compatible form of the exchange tensors directly from the crystallographic data. For any bond formed by magnetic ions, Jsymm produces the tensors of the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya and anisotropic Heisenberg exchange interaction in symbolic form, as well as the tensors for all other bonds related to it by symmetry. This reduces the number of independent model parameters, dramatically lowering the computational cost of the ab initio calculations and preventing unphysical results arising from symmetry violations. The package accepts standard CIF files and provides a web interface in addition to an interactive text mode and a Python library. We demonstrate its utility on La$_2$CuO$_4$ and $\alpha$-Fe$_2$O$_3$, reproducing known symmetry constraints and revealing additional relations between components of the exchange tensors of different bonds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05918 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Crystal structure of La2CuO4 (ab plane). Cu ions are shown by blue, and O ions by red spheres. Structures were generated using VESTA [26]. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    Hoyer, P

    R. Hoyer, P. P. Stavropoulos, A. Razpopov, R. Valentí, L. Šmejkal, A. Mook, Altermagnetic splitting of magnons in hematiteα-Fe 2O3, Physical Review B 112 (6) (2025) 064425.doi:10.1103/fgc1-5blp. 29

    doi:10.1103/fgc1-5blp 2025

  2. [25]

    Weak ferromagnetism in antiferromagnets: Fe$_{2}$O$_{3}$ and La$_{2}$CuO$_{4}$

    V. Mazurenko, V. Anisimov, Weak ferromagnetism in antiferromagnets: α-Fe2O3 andLa 2CuO4, PhysicalReviewB71(18)(2005)184434.arXiv: cond-mat/0410767v1

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  3. [1]

    Heisenberg, Zur Theorie des Ferromagnetismus, Zeitschrift für Physik 49 (1928) 619.doi:10.1007/BF01328601

    W. Heisenberg, Zur Theorie des Ferromagnetismus, Zeitschrift für Physik 49 (1928) 619.doi:10.1007/BF01328601

    doi:10.1007/bf01328601 1928

  4. [2]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Quantum mechanics of many-electron systems, Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 123 (792) (1929) 714–733. doi:10.1098/rspa.1929.0094

    work page arXiv 1929

  5. [3]

    J. H. Van Vleck, On the anisotropy of cubic ferromagnetic crystals, Physical Review 52 (11) (1937) 1178–1198.doi:10.1103/PhysRev.52. 1178

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.52 1937

  6. [4]

    Cheong, M

    S.-W. Cheong, M. Mostovoy, Multiferroics: A magnetic twist for ferro- electricity, Nature materials 6 (1) (2007) 13–20.doi:10.1038/nmat1804

    doi:10.1038/nmat1804 2007

  7. [5]

    Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond, Annals of Physics 321 (1) (2006) 2–111.doi:10.1016/j.aop.2005.10.005

    A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond, Annals of Physics 321 (1) (2006) 2–111.doi:10.1016/j.aop.2005.10.005. 26

    doi:10.1016/j.aop.2005.10.005 2006

  8. [6]

    Jackeli, G

    G. Jackeli, G. Khaliullin, Mott insulators in the strong spin-orbit cou- pling limit: From Heisenberg to a quantum compass and Kitaev models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (1) (2009) 017205.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 102.017205

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2009

Show all 32 references
  1. [7]

    Liechtenstein, V

    A. Liechtenstein, V. Gubanov, M. Katsnelson, V. Anisimov, Magnetic transition state approach to ferromagnetism of metals: Ni, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 36 (1983) 125

    1983

  2. [8]

    Korotin, V

    D. Korotin, V. Mazurenko, V. Anisimov, S. Streltsov, Calculation of ex- change constants of the Heisenberg model in plane-wave-based methods using the Green’s function approach, Physical Review B 91 (22) (2015) 224405.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.91.224405

    2015 doi

  3. [9]

    Xiang, E

    H. Xiang, E. Kan, S.-H. Wei, M.-H. Whangbo, X. Gong, Predicting the spin-lattice order of frustrated systems from first principles, Physical Review B 84 (22) (2011) 224429.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.84.224429

    2011 doi

  4. [10]

    Noodleman, Valence bond description of antiferromagnetic coupling in transition metal dimers, The Journal of Chemical Physics 74 (10) (1981) 5737.doi:10.1063/1.440939

    L. Noodleman, Valence bond description of antiferromagnetic coupling in transition metal dimers, The Journal of Chemical Physics 74 (10) (1981) 5737.doi:10.1063/1.440939

    1981 doi

  5. [11]

    Riedl, Y

    K. Riedl, Y. Li, R. Valent, S. M. Winter, Ab-initio approaches for low- energy spin Hamiltonians, Phys. Status Solidi B 256 (2019) 1800684. arXiv:1811.06553v1

    2019 arXiv

  6. [12]

    X. Li, H. Yu, F. Lou, J. Feng, M. H. Whangbo, H. Xiang, Spin Hamilto- nians in magnets: Theories and computations, Molecules 26 (4) (2021) 803.doi:10.3390/molecules26040803

    2021 doi

  7. [13]

    Szilva, Y

    A. Szilva, Y. Kvashnin, E. A. Stepanov, L. Nordström, O. Eriksson, A. I. Lichtenstein, M. I. Katsnelson, Quantitative theory of magnetic interactions in solids, Review of Modern Physics 95 (2022) 035004. arXiv:2206.02415

    2022 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Yu. A. Izyumov, V. E. Naish, R. P. Ozerov, Neutron Diffraction of Magnetic Materials, Springer US, Boston, MA, 1991.doi:10.1007/ 978-1-4615-3658-1

    1991

  9. [15]

    Tsukerblat, M

    B. Tsukerblat, M. Belinskii, Magnetochemistry and Radiospectroscopy of Exchange Clusters, Kishinev, 1983. 27

    1983

  10. [16]

    Moriya, Anisotropic superexchange interaction and weak ferromag- netism, Physical Review 120 (1960) 97

    T. Moriya, Anisotropic superexchange interaction and weak ferromag- netism, Physical Review 120 (1960) 97

    1960

  11. [17]

    Hjorth Larsen, J

    A. Hjorth Larsen, J. Jørgen Mortensen, J. Blomqvist, I. E. Castelli, R. Christensen, M. Dułak, J. Friis, M. N. Groves, B. Hammer, C. Har- gus, E. D. Hermes, P. C. Jennings, P. Bjerre Jensen, J. Kermode, J. R. Kitchin, E. Leonhard Kolsbjerg, J. Kubal, K. Kaasbjerg, S. Lysgaard,...

    2017

  12. [18]

    Bradley, D

    J. Bradley, D. Behar, Parsnip documentation,https://parsnip-cif. readthedocs.io(2026)

    2026

  13. [19]

    A. Togo, K. Shinohara, I. Tanaka, Spglib: a software library for crys- tal symmetry search, Science and Technology of Advanced Materials: Methods 4 (1) (2024) 2384822.doi:10.1080/27660400.2024.2384822

    2024

  14. [20]

    Sergeev, S

    A. Sergeev, S. Streltsov, Jsymm documentation,https://jsymm. readthedocs.io(2026)

    2026

  15. [21]

    Jsymm web interface,http://jsymm.ru(2026)

    2026

  16. [22]

    M. A. Kastner, R. J. Birgeneau, T. R. Thurston, P. J. Picone, H. P. Jenssen, D. R. Gabbe, M. Sato, K. Fukuda, S. Shamoto, Y. Endoh, K. Yamada, G. Shirane, Neutron-scattering study of the transition from antiferromagnetic to weak ferromagnetic order in La2CuO4, Physical Review ...

    1988 doi

  17. [23]

    P. G. Radaelli, D. G. Hinks, A. W. Mitchell, B. A. Hunter, J. L. Wag- ner, B. Dabrowski, K. G. Vandervoort, H. K. Viswanathan, J. D. Jor- gensen, Structural and superconducting properties of La2−x Srx CuO4 as a Function of Sr Content, Physical Review B 49 (6) (1994) 4163–4175....

    1994 doi

  18. [24]

    Shekhtman, A

    L. Shekhtman, A. Aharony, O. Entin-Wohlman, Bond-dependent sym- metric and antisymmetric superexchange interactions in La 2CuO4, 28 Physical Review B 47 (1) (1993) 174–182.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.47. 174

    1993 doi

  19. [26]

    Momma, F

    K. Momma, F. Izumi, VESTA 3 for three-dimensional visualization of crystal, volumetric and morphology data, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 44 (2011) 1272

    2011

  20. [27]

    Pauling, S

    L. Pauling, S. B. Hendricks, The crystal structures of hematite and corundum, Journal of the American Chemical Society 47 (3) (1925) 781– 790.doi:10.1021/ja01680a027

    1925 doi

  21. [28]

    P. J. Flanders, J. P. Remeika, Magnetic properties of hematite sin- gle crystals, The Philosophical Magazine: A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Applied Physics 11 (114) (1965) 1271–1288.doi: 10.1080/14786436508224935

    1965 doi

  22. [29]

    A. H. Hill, F. Jiao, P. G. Bruce, A. Harrison, W. Kockelmann, C. Rit- ter, Neutron diffraction study of mesoporous and bulk hematite,α- Fe2O3, Chemistry of Materials 20 (15) (2008) 4891–4899.doi:10.1021/ cm800009s

    2008

  23. [30]

    Dzyaloshinskii, A thermodynamic theory of “weak” ferromagnetism of antiferromagnetics, J

    I. Dzyaloshinskii, A thermodynamic theory of “weak” ferromagnetism of antiferromagnetics, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 4 (2) (1958) 241.doi: 10.1002/pssb.2220460236

    1958 doi

  24. [31]

    E. E. Newnham, Y. M. de Haan, Refinement of the a Al2O3, Ti2O3, V2O3 and Cr2O3 structures, Zeitschrift für Kristallographie - Crystalline Materials 117 (1-6) (Jan. 1962).doi:10.1524/zkri.1962.117.16.235

    1962 doi

Pith tools

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