Manipulating 4f quadrupolar pair interactions in TbB2C2 using a magnetic field

A. Kikkawa; A.M. Mulders; J.M. Tonnerre; K. Katsumata; U. Staub; V. Scagnoli; Y. Tanaka

REVIEW

Manipulating 4f quadrupolar pair interactions in TbB2C2 using a magnetic field

A.M. Mulders, U. Staub, V. Scagnoli, Y. Tanaka, A. Kikkawa, K. Katsumata, J.M. Tonnerre

Strongly Correlated Electrons · Submitted 2 Mar 2006 · 17 references

Pith's verdict: Careful x-ray scattering work showing field-induced rotation of Tb 4f quadrupoles in TbB2C2, but the claim that the quadrupolar pair interaction strengthens is an interpretation, not a measured energy.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 28, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 4 major objections · 6 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDcond-mat/0603049 (version 2)

Pith IDIKJ6J5N2, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationA. Kikkawa, A.M. Mulders, J.M. Tonnerre, K. Katsumata, U. Staub, V. Scagnoli, Y. Tanaka. "Manipulating 4f quadrupolar pair interactions in TbB2C2 using a magnetic field." arXiv:cond-mat/0603049 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/IKJ6J5N2

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Peter,

Quick take on cond-mat/0603049. The real news is the field-induced rotation of Tb 4f quadrupoles in TbB2C2, tracked by non-resonant and resonant x-ray scattering. The paper shows convincingly that the quadrupoles are already ordered below TN in zero field with a ferroquadrupolar motif, and that they rotate rigidly with the magnetic moments when H is applied along [110]. The appearance of the (01 l/2) reflection while (11 l/2) stays weak, the different thresholds at 27 K, the linear structure-factor increase at 15 K, and the k-dependence fit are all coherent and well presented. The structure-factor formalism is standard, and the authors are careful to note the field-independence assumption behind the δ values.

The soft spot is the central claim about the pair interaction. The abstract says the quadrupolar pair interaction 'is found to depend on the specific orientation' and 'can be manipulated.' What is actually measured is the canting angle Δ between neighboring quadrupoles as a function of field. The step from Δ(H) to 'the relative strength of the indirect Coulomb interaction increases' rests on a competition model between exchange and indirect Coulomb coupling. No interaction energy, excitation gap, or order-parameter susceptibility is measured. The stress-test note is right that a rigid rotation with constant coupling, or a field-dependent single-ion anisotropy, could give a similar Δ(H). The paper's own caveat about ⟨Qhkl⟩ shows the model dependence.

That said, I don't think this is a fatal flaw. The field-induced increase of the ordering temperature to 35 K is at least qualitatively consistent with an enhanced AFQ interaction, and the competition model is the standard framework for this compound. The qualitative result—orbitals rotate with the moments and the relative orientation changes—is solid. The quantitative interpretation should be read as a proposal, not a proof.

Worth a serious referee. I'd send it to review; the experimental work is careful and the observation is new. The authors should be asked to temper the 'first direct observation' language and to discuss alternative explanations for Δ(H), but the manuscript deserves a chance.

Best, [Your name]

Referee report

Significance

If the central claim is correct, this is a significant experimental advance: it provides a direct demonstration that the strength of 4f quadrupolar pair interactions depends on the mutual orientation of the quadrupoles, and it connects this orientation dependence to the indirect Coulomb interaction mediated by conduction electrons. The use of two independent non-resonant reflections to isolate time-even scattering and the internal check that Ψ44 is small (Fig. 4) are strengths, as is the explicit acknowledgment that the δ extraction assumes a field-independent ⟨Qhkl⟩. The qualitative field dependence of the two reflections is clear and the structure-factor formalism is standard. The main weakness is that the final step—from the lattice angle Δ to a quantitative statement about interaction strengths—is an interpretation rather than a measurement, and alternative explanations of Δ(H) are not excluded. For this reason the claim as stated is too strong unless additional support is provided or the claim is moderated.

Major objections (4)

[p.3, paragraph beginning 'The angle Δ is a result of the competition...'] The central conclusion that the increase in Δ with field 'shows that the relative strength of the indirect Coulomb interaction increases' is underdetermined. Δ is obtained from a ratio of structure factors under the model assumptions in Eqs. (1)-(4); no energy, excitation, or order-parameter susceptibility is measured. A monotonic Δ(H) could also arise from a field-dependent single-ion anisotropy with constant pair coupling, or from a rigid rotation of pre-existing quadrupoles. The paper should either provide a quantitative test that rules out these alternatives (e.g., a calculation of the expected Δ(H) from the competition model and comparison with the data), or soften the claim to state that the data are consistent with an increase in the relative indirect Coulomb interaction. Because this sentence is the abstract's main result, the issue is load-bearing.
[p.3, paragraph beginning 'With ⟨Q01 l/2⟩ = ⟨Q11 l/2⟩...' and Fig. 4] The equality ⟨Q01⟩ = ⟨Q11⟩ is verified only at one field and temperature (5 T, 2 K) in Fig. 4, but Δ is extracted from F01/F11 at multiple fields and at 15 K and 27 K. The paper should check the l-dependence of the normalized structure factor in at least one other state (e.g., near the phase boundary or at 15 K) or provide a physical argument for why Ψ44 remains negligible throughout the (H,T) range. As written, the systematic uncertainty from this assumption is not included in the error bars of Fig. 2(c), and the statement that 'the determination of ∆ is robust against changes in ⟨Qhkl⟩ with applied field' is not fully justified.
[p.2, 'We conclude that the scattering arises from time-even...' and p.3, 'This shows that (i)...'] The zero-field orbital order is inferred rather than directly observed: the (00 1/2) reflection is weak in zero field and becomes strong only under field, and the argument relies on the absence of scattering in zero field being due to a ferroquadrupolar motif with φ1 = φ3 = 3π/4. Other zero-field quadrupolar arrangements that give zero (00 1/2) intensity for symmetry reasons are not excluded, and no quantitative upper limit is placed on a possible zero-field time-even component from the measured noise floor. The conclusion that the orbitals are 'already ordered in zero field' is plausible but should be presented with this caveat, or supported by a dedicated zero-field measurement at a different reflection.
[p.3, 'In addition the quantity sin(2δ)⟨Qhkl⟩ follows...' and Fig. 2(d)] The extraction of δ assumes ⟨Qhkl⟩ is constant in field and temperature, and the authors note that if ⟨Qhkl⟩ increases, the actual δ values are lower than shown. Since the subsequent discussion of a 'rigid' coupling and orbital rotation uses δ(H) as a measured quantity, the model-dependence of δ should be quantified. For example, the field dependence of the integrated intensities alone could be used to bound ⟨Qhkl⟩ variations, or the discussion could be limited to the linear regime (H < 1.5 T) where the structure factor is linear and the assumption is less critical.

Minor objections (6)

[Fig. 1 and p.2 caption] The legend in Fig. 1 should define 'σ' and 'π' as the incident polarization relative to the scattering plane; the sentence in the text describing Fig. 1b ('The energy profiles shown in Fig. 1 are expected to be insensitive to the magnetic structure') is confusing and should be rephrased to clarify that the energy line shape, not the intensity, is considered.
[Eqs. (3) and (4)] The Bessel-function expectation values ⟨j2⟩, ⟨j4⟩, ⟨j6⟩ are not defined; a one-sentence definition as the spherical Bessel function transforms of the 4f radial density would help readers unfamiliar with the Lovesey formalism.
[Fig. 4 and paragraph following it] The fit in Fig. 4 with Ψ42/Ψ22 = 0.5 and Ψ62/Ψ22 = 0.5 is presented without error bars or justification; the text notes that the fit 'merely confirms the absence of scattering from B and C atoms,' but the arbitrary choice of these ratios should be acknowledged in the figure caption or text.
[Fig. 3 and phase diagram] The phase labels IIa and IIb in Fig. 3 are introduced without a formal definition; a sentence relating them to the angle configurations in Figs. 3(b)-(e) would make the schematic accessible.
[Reference 14] The name 'Fernández-Rodríguez' in reference 14 contains LaTeX escape sequences in the preprint text ('Fern´ andez-Rodr ´ ıguez'); the published version should use proper UTF-8 or standard romanization.
[p.2, 'A similar behavior is observed as function of temperature...'] The sentence 'The intensities of (01 9/2) and (11 15/2) show a smooth decrease with increasing temperature and disappear below 30 K and 29.5 K, respectively' is ambiguous: 'below' should likely be 'above' or 'at', since the reflections are present at low temperature and vanish as the temperature is raised; please correct the wording.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

In TbB2C2, an applied magnetic field rotates the 4f quadrupoles with the magnetic moments and thereby strengthens the quadrupolar pair interaction.

The reading

TbB2C2 harbors ordered 4f quadrupoles, not just magnetic moments, inside its antiferromagnetic phase at zero field. The paper argues that these orbital quadrupoles are rigidly locked to the magnetic dipole moments, so an applied magnetic field along [110] rotates them as it rotates the moments. Using resonant and non-resonant x-ray diffraction, the authors extract the canting angle between neighboring orbitals and find that the indirect Coulomb pair interaction between quadrupoles grows as the orbitals swing from parallel toward perpendicular alignment. The significance is that a time-even orbital interaction, which a magnetic field cannot couple to directly, can nonetheless be manipulated through its rigid link to the moments.

What carries the argument

The central object is the canting angle $\Delta$ between the principal axes of neighboring Tb 4f orbitals in the ab-plane, extracted from the ratio of non-resonant Bragg structure factors $F_{01 l/2}$ and $F_{11 l/2}$ using the time-even scattering formalism of Lovesey et al. The structure factors are proportional to $\sin(2\phi_1)-\sin(2\phi_3)$ and $\cos(2\phi_1)-\cos(2\phi_3)$, so they vanish for parallel ferroquadrupolar alignment and grow as the orbitals tilt. The argument treats $\Delta$ as the readout of competition between magnetic exchange, which favors parallel orbitals, and the indirect Coulomb interaction, which favors perpendicular orbitals; an increase in $\Delta$ with field means the indirect Coulomb channel strengthens as the orbitals become more perpendicular.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in TbB2C2 the Tb 4f quadrupolar moments are already ferroquadrupolar-ordered in zero field below the Néel temperature, that they rotate rigidly with the magnetic moments under a field along [110], and that the quadrupole pair interaction depends on the specific orientation of the orbitals. Specifically, the indirect Coulomb interaction between neighboring quadrupoles becomes relatively stronger as the neighboring orbitals rotate from parallel toward perpendicular alignment, an effect deduced from the field-dependent canting angle $\Delta$ between the principal axes of neighboring orbitals.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the field-driven increase in the deduced orbital-canting angle $\Delta$ measures a genuine strengthening of the indirect Coulomb pair interaction, rather than a purely geometric rotation of rigidly coupled quadrupoles.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The ferrodistortive orbital order is present in the zero-field antiferromagnetic phase of TbB2C2, so field-induced antiferroquadrupolar order is not required to explain the high-field behavior.
Because the quadrupoles rotate rigidly with the magnetic moments, magnetic fields act as a tuning knob for orbital pair interactions in 4f systems.
The observed increase of the ordering temperature with field is consistent with antiferroquadrupolar coupling strengthening as the orbital alignment approaches perpendicular.
The same x-ray diffraction method can map the angular dependence of indirect Coulomb multipole interactions in other rare-earth intermetallic compounds.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper measures an angle, not an energy; a direct extension would be to combine the diffraction data with inelastic scattering or specific heat to quantify how much the pair-coupling energy actually changes with field.
The theoretical angle-dependence could be tested further by applying the field along different crystallographic directions, such as [100] or [001], to see whether the strengthening follows the orbital orientation or just the field geometry.
If the coupling truly strengthens as orbitals become perpendicular, higher fields or different lattice geometries might drive field-tuned quadrupolar phase transitions without any dipole ordering change.
Because the authors assume the quadrupole expectation value is roughly constant, their extracted tilt angles are likely lower bounds; a resonant measurement of the quadrupole moment versus field would sharpen the angular estimates.

Original abstract

Resonant soft x-ray Bragg diffraction at the Tb M4,5 edges and non resonant Bragg diffraction have been used to investigate orbitals in TbB2C2. The Tb 4f quadrupole moments are ordered in zero field below T_N and show a ferroquadrupolar alignment dictated by the antiferromagnetic order. With increasing applied field along [110] the Tb 4f magnetic dipole moments rotate in a gradual manner toward the field. The quadrupole moment is rigidly coupled to the magnetic moment and follows this field-induced rotation. The quadrupolar pair interaction is found to depend on the specific orientation of the orbitals as predicted theoretically and can be manipulated with an applied magnetic field.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,304 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.05 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.16 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.17 · compares with prior results 0.12 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Resonant soft x-ray Bragg diffraction at the Tb M4,5 edges and non resonant Bragg diffraction have been used to investigate orbitals in TbB2C2. The Tb 4f quadrupole moments are ordered in zero field below T_N and show a ferroquadrupolar alignment dictated by the antiferromagnetic order. With increasing applied field along [110] the Tb 4f magnetic dipole moments rotate in a gradual manner toward the field. The quadrupole moment is rigidly coupled to the magnetic moment and follows this field-induced rotation. The quadrupolar pair interaction is found to depend on the specific orientation of the orbitals as predicted theoretically and can be manipulated with an applied magnetic field.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Resonant soft x-ray Bragg diffraction at the Tb M4,5 edges and non resonant Bragg diffraction have been used to investigate orbitals in TbB2C2.	method 0.99	0.92	0.03	asserted 0.98
s1	The Tb 4f quadrupole moments are ordered in zero field below T_N and show a ferroquadrupolar alignment dictated by the antiferromagnetic order.	result 1.00	0.84	0.09	asserted 1.00
s2	With increasing applied field along [110] the Tb 4f magnetic dipole moments rotate in a gradual manner toward the field.	result 1.00	0.89	0.06	asserted 1.00
s3	The quadrupole moment is rigidly coupled to the magnetic moment and follows this field-induced rotation.	result 0.91	0.83	0.14	asserted 1.00
s4	The quadrupolar pair interaction is found to depend on the specific orientation of the orbitals as predicted theoretically and can be manipulated with an applied magnetic field.	result 0.85	0.93	0.88	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from observation or experiment 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1: Energy profile of the (00

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: (a) Phase diagram of TbB

**Figure 4.** They are equal within the experimental uncer

Showing 3 of the paper's 4 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:cond-mat/0603049 by the authors.

References

Works cited (17)

[1]

author S. Grenier , author J. P. Hill , author D. Gibbs , author K. J. Thomas , author M.v. Zimmermann , author C. S. Nelson , author V. Kiryukhin , author Y. Tokura , author Y. Tomioka , author D. Casa , author T. Gog , and author C. Venkataraman , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 69 , pages 134419 ( year 2004 )

View on Pith 2004
[2]

author T. Takimoto , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 62 , pages R14641 ( year 2000 )

View on Pith 2000
[3]

author H. H. Teitelbaum , and author P. M. Levy , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 14 , pages 3058 ( year 1976 )

View on Pith 1976
[4]

author P. M. Levy , author P. Morin , and author D. Schmitt , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 42 , pages 1417 ( year 1979 )

View on Pith 1979
[5]

author T. Onimaru , author T. Sakakibara , author N. Aso , author H. Yoshizawa , author H. S. Suzuki , and author T. Takeuchi , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 94 , pages 197201 ( year 2005 )

View on Pith 2005
[6]

author A. Kiss and author P. Fazekas , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 71 , pages 054415 ( year 2005 )

View on Pith 2005
[7]

author Y. Tanaka , author T. Inami , author T. Nakamura , author H. Yamauchi , author H. Onodera , author K. Ohoyama , and author Y. Yamaguchi , journal J. Phys.: Condens. Matter volume 11 , pages L505 ( year 1999 )

View on Pith 1999
[8]

author K. Hirota , author N. Oumi , author T. Matsumura , author H. Nakao , author Y. Wakabayashi , author Y. Murakami , and author Y. Endoh , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 84 , pages 2706 ( year 2000 )

View on Pith 2000
[9]

author K. Kaneko , author H. Onodera , author H. Yamauchi , author T. Sakon , author M. Motokawa , and author Y. Yamaguchi , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 68 , pages 012401 ( year 2003 )

View on Pith 2003
[10]

author K. Kaneko , author S. Katano , author M. Matsuda , author K. Ohoyama , author H. Onodera , and author Y. Yamaguchi , journal Appl. Phys. A volume 74 , pages S1749 ( year 2002 )

View on Pith 2002
[11]

author D. Okuyama , author T. Matsumura , author H. Nakao , author Y. Murakami , author H. Onodera , author A. Tobo , author Y. Wakabayashi , and author H. Sawa , journal J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. volume 74 , pages 1566 ( year 2005 )

View on Pith 2005
[12]

author A. M. Mulders , author U. Staub , author V. Scagnoli , author T. Nakamura , and author A. Kikkawa , journal Physica B volume 378-380 , pages 367 ( year 2006 )

View on Pith 2006
[13]

author H. Adachi , author H. Kawata , author M. Mizumaki , author T. Akao , author M. Sato , author N. Ikeda , author Y. Tanaka , and author H. Miwa , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 89 , pages 206401 ( year 2002 )

View on Pith 2002
[14]

author S. W. Lovesey , author E. Balcar , author K. S. Knight , and author J. Fern\' a ndez-Rodr\' guez , journal Phys. Rep. volume 411 , pages 233 ( year 2005 )

View on Pith 2005
[15]

author K. Kaneko , author H. Onodera , author H. Yamauchi , author K. Ohoyama , author A. Tobo , and author Y. Yamaguchi , journal J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. volume 70 , pages 3112 ( year 2001 )

View on Pith 2001
[16]

author U. Staub , author A. M. Mulders , author O. Zaharko , author S. Janssen , author T. Nakamura , and author S. W. Lovesey , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 94 , eid 036408 ( year 2005 )

View on Pith 2005
[17]

author M. Maino , author A. Tobo , and author H. Onodera , journal J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. volume 74 , pages 1838 ( year 2005 )

View on Pith 2005

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

author S. Grenier , author J. P. Hill , author D. Gibbs , author K. J. Thomas , author M.v. Zimmermann , author C. S. Nelson , author V. Kiryukhin , author Y. Tokura , author Y. Tomioka , author D. Casa , author T. Gog , and author C. Venkataraman , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 69 , pages 134419 ( year 2004 )

View on Pith 2004

[2] [2]

author T. Takimoto , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 62 , pages R14641 ( year 2000 )

View on Pith 2000

[3] [3]

author H. H. Teitelbaum , and author P. M. Levy , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 14 , pages 3058 ( year 1976 )

View on Pith 1976

[4] [4]

author P. M. Levy , author P. Morin , and author D. Schmitt , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 42 , pages 1417 ( year 1979 )

View on Pith 1979

[5] [5]

author T. Onimaru , author T. Sakakibara , author N. Aso , author H. Yoshizawa , author H. S. Suzuki , and author T. Takeuchi , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 94 , pages 197201 ( year 2005 )

View on Pith 2005

[6] [6]

author A. Kiss and author P. Fazekas , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 71 , pages 054415 ( year 2005 )

View on Pith 2005

[7] [7]

author Y. Tanaka , author T. Inami , author T. Nakamura , author H. Yamauchi , author H. Onodera , author K. Ohoyama , and author Y. Yamaguchi , journal J. Phys.: Condens. Matter volume 11 , pages L505 ( year 1999 )

View on Pith 1999

[8] [8]

author K. Hirota , author N. Oumi , author T. Matsumura , author H. Nakao , author Y. Wakabayashi , author Y. Murakami , and author Y. Endoh , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 84 , pages 2706 ( year 2000 )

View on Pith 2000

[9] [9]

author K. Kaneko , author H. Onodera , author H. Yamauchi , author T. Sakon , author M. Motokawa , and author Y. Yamaguchi , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 68 , pages 012401 ( year 2003 )

View on Pith 2003

[10] [10]

author K. Kaneko , author S. Katano , author M. Matsuda , author K. Ohoyama , author H. Onodera , and author Y. Yamaguchi , journal Appl. Phys. A volume 74 , pages S1749 ( year 2002 )

View on Pith 2002

[11] [11]

author D. Okuyama , author T. Matsumura , author H. Nakao , author Y. Murakami , author H. Onodera , author A. Tobo , author Y. Wakabayashi , and author H. Sawa , journal J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. volume 74 , pages 1566 ( year 2005 )

View on Pith 2005

[12] [12]

author A. M. Mulders , author U. Staub , author V. Scagnoli , author T. Nakamura , and author A. Kikkawa , journal Physica B volume 378-380 , pages 367 ( year 2006 )

View on Pith 2006

[13] [13]

author H. Adachi , author H. Kawata , author M. Mizumaki , author T. Akao , author M. Sato , author N. Ikeda , author Y. Tanaka , and author H. Miwa , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 89 , pages 206401 ( year 2002 )

View on Pith 2002

[14] [14]

author S. W. Lovesey , author E. Balcar , author K. S. Knight , and author J. Fern\' a ndez-Rodr\' guez , journal Phys. Rep. volume 411 , pages 233 ( year 2005 )

View on Pith 2005

[15] [15]

author K. Kaneko , author H. Onodera , author H. Yamauchi , author K. Ohoyama , author A. Tobo , and author Y. Yamaguchi , journal J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. volume 70 , pages 3112 ( year 2001 )

View on Pith 2001

[16] [16]

author U. Staub , author A. M. Mulders , author O. Zaharko , author S. Janssen , author T. Nakamura , and author S. W. Lovesey , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 94 , eid 036408 ( year 2005 )

View on Pith 2005

[17] [17]

author M. Maino , author A. Tobo , and author H. Onodera , journal J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. volume 74 , pages 1838 ( year 2005 )

View on Pith 2005