Magnetooptic coupling coefficients for one- and two-magnon Raman scattering in rutile-structure antiferromagnets FeF2, MnF2, CoF2, and NiF2
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inelastic light scattering intensities in response to magnetic excitations are governed by magnetooptic coupling coefficients, which have been previously evaluated, for instance, for the ferrimagnetic Y3Fe5O12 (YIG) and the metamagnetic FeCl2 and FeBr2. However, by far the most detailed studies to date were performed on the classic rutile-structure antiferromagnets, and here we summarize the results obtained from the many experimental and theoretical investigations of these compounds for both one-magnon and two-magnon excitations. A comparison of the magnitudes of the various coupling coefficients for MnF2, FeF2, CoF2, and NiF2 reveals a surprising similarity in many coefficients. In one-magnon Raman scattering the in-phase linear magnetooptic coefficient dominates, and the main differences between MnF2, FeF2, and NiF2 lie in the relative significance of the in-phase quadratic magnetooptic coefficient. Thus, the quadratic coefficients now appear to be of particular importance in determining the strength of one-magnon scattering in a variety of magnetic insulators. In two-magnon Raman scattering one magnetooptic coefficient is dominant for all of these antiferromagnets. However, the other six coefficients are in general remarkably similar in magnitude and not negligible in most cases, indicating some similarity in the way light interacts with the pairs of magnons of opposite and equal wave vectors in rutile structure antiferromagnets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it