4.6 Article

Magnetic pair distribution function data using polarized neutrons and ad hoc corrections

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS
卷 132, 期 22, 页码 -

出版社

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/5.0130400

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences (DOE-BES) [DE-SC0021134]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-SC0021134] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reports the first example of obtaining magnetic pair distribution function (mPDF) data through neutron polarization analysis, showcasing high-quality mPDF data collected on an antiferromagnetic semiconductor. By applying ad hoc corrections to the data, significant improvement in data quality was demonstrated, providing insights into the potential for routine collection of high-quality mPDF data.
We report the first example of magnetic pair distribution function (mPDF) data obtained through the use of neutron polarization analysis. Using the antiferromagnetic semiconductor MnTe as a test case, we present high-quality mPDF data collected on the HYSPEC instrument at the Spallation Neutron Source using longitudinal polarization analysis to isolate the magnetic scattering cross section. Clean mPDF patterns are obtained for MnTe in both the magnetically ordered state and the correlated paramagnet state, where only short-range magnetic order is present. We also demonstrate significant improvement in the quality of high-resolution mPDF data through the application of ad hoc corrections that require only minimal human input, minimizing potential sources of error in the data processing procedure. We briefly discuss the current limitations and future outlook of mPDF analysis using polarized neutrons. Overall, this work provides a useful benchmark for mPDF analysis using polarized neutrons and provides an encouraging picture of the potential for routine collection of high-quality mPDF data. Published under an exclusive license by AIP Publishing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据