{"id":"ad14a15b-548e-4501-bf11-0aa68f979da6","arxiv_id":"2505.22955","paper_version":1,"verdict":"REJECT","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":5.0,"correctness_risk":"high","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":2,"one_line_summary":"First-principles calculations predict tunable electronic and magnetic edge states in Ta2Ni3Te5 nanoribbons, and claim the monolayer is an excitonic insulator because model exciton binding exceeds the assumed gap.","lead":"This paper uses supercomputer calculations to predict that ribbons of the layered material Ta2Ni3Te5 can be metals, semiconductors, or magnets depending on how their edges are cut and capped. It also claims the single-layer form is an 'excitonic insulator', a phase where electron-hole pairs form more easily than electrons conduct; that claim rests on a calculation step that assumes the conclusion it reports.","discovery_kind":"new_application","skeptic_critique":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"The EI conclusion rests on a circular scissor: the STS gap, which the paper itself calls an excitonic gap, is used as the quasiparticle gap in BSE, forcing the dark exciton negative.","rationale":"The reader's weakest assumption is exactly the load-bearing point: the paper uses the STS gap, which it interprets as an excitonic gap, as the quasiparticle gap in a scissored BSE calculation. The strongest claim quoted in the reader's verdict is the scissored first dark exciton at -0.195 eV, and that result is not an independent confirmation of the EI state. The paper's own unscissored G0W0+BSE gives a positive dark-exciton energy (+0.14 eV) with a 276 meV binding energy against a 417 meV gap, which is a conventional bound exciton. The scissor operation converts this into a negative exciton by construction, once the STS gap is substituted for the quasiparticle gap. This is circular because the central question is precisely whether the 90-100 meV STS gap is a quasiparticle gap or an exciton-renormalized gap. The mBSE calculations provide a separate route to the EI claim, and they do yield negative exciton energies even with the LOPTICS-derived screening parameters, so the claim is not entirely unsupported. However, the mBSE method depends on fitted screening parameters alpha and mu, whose values are only partially reported, and the method is not benchmarked against a known non-EI material in this paper. Given that the central advertised claim is currently supported by a circular scissor and an unvalidated model, the reader's REJECT verdict is appropriate. I would not move the verdict; the paper would need major revision to reframe the EI claim as a hypothesis supported by mBSE and to remove or properly justify the scissor step. The nanoribbon portion of the paper is a plausible computational study, but it does not cure the defect in the central claim.","tokens_in":16469,"tokens_out":5793,"duration_ms":65577,"concrete_test":"Recompute the BSE dark-exciton energy as a function of the scissor shift Delta applied to the G0W0 conduction bands, for Delta = 0, 100, 200, and 322 meV. If the result follows E_x(Delta) = E_x(0) - Delta to within BSE numerical noise, then the negative exciton energy is imposed by the chosen input gap, not by new physics. Separately, measure the quasiparticle gap of monolayer Ta2Ni3Te5 by ARPES or by STS with an explicit model of tip-induced band bending; if the quasiparticle gap is near the G0W0 value of ~417 meV, the paper's own unscissored BSE rules out the EI state, whereas a quasiparticle gap below ~276 meV would support it.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The central excitonic-insulator claim depends entirely on the scissored G0W0+BSE calculation in Section 3.4. There, the G0W0 gap of 417 meV is rigidly lowered to 95 meV to match the experimental STS gap, and the first dark exciton then appears at -0.195 eV with a binding energy of 285 meV, which is presented as 'confirming' the excitonic insulator. This is not an independent confirmation. Section 3.1 explicitly states that the 90-100 meV STS gap 'likely represents a renormalized excitonic gap rather than the quasiparticle band gap.' But the BSE Hamiltonian requires the quasiparticle (single-particle addition/removal) gap as input. Using the STS gap as that input builds the EI conclusion into the calculation: under a rigid conduction-band scissor by Delta, the exciton energy is approximately E_x(Delta) = E_x(0) - Delta, with binding energy nearly unchanged. With E_x(0) = +0.14 eV from the paper's own unscissored G0W0+BSE, any chosen quasiparticle gap below about 276 meV automatically yields a negative exciton. The scissored result is therefore algebraically forced by the choice of input gap, not derived from the physics. The unscissored calculation, which is the least parameter-dependent many-body result in the paper, gives a dark exciton at +0.14 eV against a 417 meV gap: a normal bound exciton, not an excitonic insulator. The metaGGA+mBSE results do give negative exciton energies without the scissor, but they rely on screening parameters alpha and mu fitted to RPA dielectric functions, with mu and the fitting details not reported, and the method is not benchmarked against a known non-EI monolayer. As presented, the 'confirmation' quoted in the strongest claim is circular.","agreement_with_reader":"agree"},"referee_report":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","summary":"The manuscript reports two sets of first-principles results for Ta2Ni3Te5. First, it presents DFT (r2SCAN+SOC) calculations for fifteen nanoribbons with Ni or Ta edges and H/F passivation, finding tunable metallic, semimetallic, and semiconducting behaviors with gaps of 29.7–60.8 meV, and ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic edge magnetism depending on width and saturation. Second, it presents G0W0+BSE and metaGGA-based modified BSE (mBSE) calculations for the monolayer, claiming that the monolayer is an excitonic insulator with the lowest exciton binding energy (285–586 meV) exceeding the band gap (95–169 meV). The excitonic-insulator conclusion is supported in Section 3.4 by a scissored G0W0+BSE calculation in which the quasiparticle gap is artificially lowered from 417 meV to 95 meV, and by mBSE results with screening parameters fitted to an RPA dielectric function.","tokens_in":16660,"tokens_out":6097,"duration_ms":58209,"significance":"If the excitonic-insulator claim were correct, it would be notable because monolayer Ta2Ni3Te5 is also predicted to be a second-order topological insulator, and the coexistence of excitonic and topological order is an active topic. The nanoribbon results provide a systematic catalog of edge chemistry, magnetism, and band-gap tuning that could be useful for nanoelectronics and spintronics. The paper also includes standard many-body calculations and presents machine-readable-like details of the computational setups. However, the central claim of the paper—the excitonic insulator state—rests on a circular scissor operation and on a model method with parameter sensitivity that is not resolved against the unscissored G0W0+BSE result. The nanoribbon part is sound but secondary; the headline conclusion is not established.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The central excitonic-insulator claim is based on a circular argument. Section 3.1 states that the experimental STS gap of 90–100 meV 'likely represents a renormalized excitonic gap rather than the quasiparticle band gap.' Section 3.4 then applies a scissor operation to lower the G0W0 quasiparticle gap to 95 meV—the STS value—and reports a first dark exciton at -0.195 eV with binding energy 285 meV, which is presented as 'confirming that the Ta2Ni3Te5 monolayer is an excitonic insulator.' But the BSE Hamiltonian requires the quasiparticle (single-particle addition/removal) gap as input. The authors have already assumed that the 95 meV STS gap is the excitonic gap, so using it as the quasiparticle gap builds the excitonic-insulator conclusion into the calculation. The unscissored G0W0+BSE result shown in Figure 6(d) gives a dark exciton at +0.14 eV with binding energy 276 meV against a 417 meV gap, which is a normal bound exciton, not an excitonic insulator. Under a rigid scissor, the exciton energy shifts approximately linearly with the gap reduction, so any input gap below roughly 276 meV automatically yields a negative exciton energy; the negative sign is forced by the chosen input, not derived from the electron-hole interaction physics.","section":"Section 3.4 and Section 3.1"},{"comment":"The metaGGA+mBSE results in Table 1 depend sensitively on the fitted screening parameters, and they disagree qualitatively with the unscissored G0W0+BSE. For LAK, the CHI fitting gives alpha = 0.236 and a binding energy of 586 meV, while the LOPTICS fitting gives alpha = 0.108 and a binding energy of 299 meV; for r2SCAN the corresponding values are 0.241/592 meV and 0.088/254 meV. This factor-of-two spread shows that the 'binding energy exceeds the gap' conclusion is not robust to the choice of the screening model. The paper does not report the second screening parameter mu, nor does it justify why the CHI-derived parameter set is preferred over the LOPTICS one. Moreover, these mBSE results give a negative exciton energy even without the scissor, which is inconsistent with the unscissored G0W0+BSE dark exciton at +0.14 eV. The authors should either explain this discrepancy in a quantitative way, for example by analyzing the difference in screening and starting point, or refrain from claiming that two independent methods confirm the excitonic insulator.","section":"Section 3.4 and Table 1"},{"comment":"The abstract and conclusion state that the lowest exciton's binding energy is '285–586 meV' and that it exceeds 'the calculated band gap (95–169 meV).' The 95 meV lower end of the gap range is not a calculated quasiparticle gap; it is the scissored value imposed to match the experimental STS gap. Including it in the same range as the calculated r2SCAN/LAK gaps (153–169 meV) conflates an experimental input with a first-principles output and makes the two methods appear more consistent than they are. The range of binding energies also mixes the scissored G0W0+BSE value (285 meV) with the mBSE values (586–592 meV) obtained with a different screening parameter. A clearer presentation would list the method, the quasiparticle gap, the exciton energy, and the binding energy separately for each calculation.","section":"Abstract and Conclusion"}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"The section numbering jumps from 3.2 to 3.4; there is no Section 3.3. This is presumably a typo but should be fixed.","section":"Section numbering"},{"comment":"The captions of Figures 7 and 8 refer to 'Figure 8(d)' and 'Figure 8(d)' respectively when identifying the first dark and bright excitons; the exciton spectrum is actually shown in Figure 6(d).","section":"Figure captions"},{"comment":"The text uses 'R2SCAN' in several places, for example in Figure 10 and Section 3.2.1, instead of the consistent 'r2SCAN' notation used elsewhere.","section":"Notation"},{"comment":"Reference 21 is listed as 'Wang et al. Prepared.' This is not a complete citation. If it contains the experimental synthesis, STS, and characterization data used in Section 3.1, it must be replaced with a citable reference or the data must be described in the text.","section":"Reference 21"},{"comment":"Table 1 lists only the alpha screening parameter and not the mu parameter, although the text says that both alpha and mu are fitted to the RPA dielectric function. Reporting mu would be important for reproducibility of the mBSE calculations.","section":"Table 1 and screening parameters"},{"comment":"The conclusion says 'gaps ~20–50 meV' for the semiconducting Ni-edged H-saturated nanoribbons, whereas the abstract and Section 3.2.2 give 29.7–47.8 meV for these ribbons; the ranges should be consistent.","section":"Gap notation in conclusion"}],"recommendation":"reject","confidential_remarks":"The paper combines two rather different studies: a systematic nanoribbon DFT catalog and a monolayer excitonic-insulator prediction. The nanoribbon part is straightforward and appears technically sound, but the excitonic-insulator claim is the headline result and it is not supported. The scissor operation in Section 3.4 is circular because the authors themselves interpret the STS gap as the excitonic gap and then use it as the quasiparticle gap in BSE. The mBSE results, while not circular in the same way, depend on fitted screening parameters and disagree with the unscissored G0W0+BSE. Given that the central conclusion is unsound, rejection is appropriate even though the nanoribbon portion might be publishable separately. If the authors revise, they should remove the 'confirmation' language from the scissored calculation and provide a rigorous analysis of the mBSE parameter sensitivity and its discrepancy with G0W0+BSE."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","letter":"Short version: the nanoribbon half of this paper is a solid, systematic computational study. The excitonic-insulator claim for the monolayer does not hold up as presented.\n\nWhat's new: this is the first nanoribbon work for Ta2Ni3Te5, and the authors do a thorough job — 15 ribbons, variation of edge (Ni vs Ta), width, and H/F passivation, with a clear classification into metallic/semimetallic/semiconducting and FM/AFM/non-magnetic states. That part is plausible and would be useful to people working on this material family or on edge engineering in quasi-1D chalcogenides. The monolayer EI prediction is new for this material, but it follows the same recipe used for Ta2Pd3Te5, so the novelty is in the application, not the framework.\n\nThe problem is the central EI claim. The unscissored G0W0+BSE gives a dark exciton at +0.14 eV with a binding energy of 276 meV against a 417 meV quasiparticle gap. That is a normal bound exciton, not an excitonic insulator. The EI conclusion comes only after scissoring the gap down to 95 meV to match the STS gap. But the paper itself says, in Section 3.1, that the STS gap is likely the renormalized excitonic gap rather than the quasiparticle gap. So the scissor assumes what it is trying to prove: if you force the QP gap to be 95 meV, BSE will almost always produce a negative exciton because the binding energy exceeds the gap. The algebra is essentially forced. The metaGGA+mBSE results do give negative excitons without the scissor, but they depend on screening parameters alpha and mu fitted to RPA dielectric functions; mu and the fitting details are not reported, and the method is not benchmarked against a known non-EI monolayer. So those results are suggestive, not confirmatory.\n\nI want to be fair: the inconsistency is visible in the text, so it is not hidden. The authors clearly state their interpretation of the STS gap, and then use that same number as the QP gap. That is an overclaim, but the underlying calculations are reproducible and the nanoribbon part stands on its own.\n\nWho gets value from this? Anyone working on the Ta2M3Te5 family or nanoribbon edge states. The ribbon classification is the reliable contribution. The EI claim should be treated as a hypothesis for experimental testing, not a demonstrated prediction.\n\nRecommendation: this deserves peer review, but the referee should push for a major revision. Present the unscissored G0W0+BSE result as the primary many-body result, move the scissored calculation to a clearly labeled \"what if the STS gap were the QP gap\" test, and either benchmark mBSE on a non-EI monolayer or report the full screening parameters. With that re-framing, the paper would be honest and still interesting.","headline":"Solid nanoribbon study, but the excitonic-insulator claim rests on a circular scissor and should be re-framed as a hypothesis.","tokens_in":17463,"tokens_out":1988,"would_cite":true,"duration_ms":18379,"reading_group":"maybe","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"rs_alignment":null,"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":["71.35.-y","73.22.-f","71.15.Mb","71.20.-b"],"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"The paper predicts that a monolayer of Ta2Ni3Te5 is an excitonic insulator, with first dark exciton binding energy 285–586 meV exceeding the 95–169 meV band gap, while nanoribbon edge termination tunes metallic/semiconducting and magnetic…","keywords":["excitonic insulator","Ta2Ni3Te5 monolayer","nanoribbon edge states","Bethe-Salpeter equation","GW approximation","metaGGA","transition metal chalcogenide","first-principles calculations"],"falsifier":"Measure the monolayer's quasiparticle band gap directly with ARPES or with tunneling spectroscopy configured to resolve single-particle states: a gap near 417 meV would refute the EI claim because the paper's own unscissored BSE calculation then puts the first dark exciton at +0.14 eV, above the gap. A temperature-dependent gap renormalization in STS or optical absorption below a critical temperature would support it.","tokens_in":16028,"feed_emoji":"⚛️","tokens_out":10885,"duration_ms":104558,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"Using first-principles calculations, this paper predicts that the monolayer form of the layered chalcogenide Ta2Ni3Te5 is an excitonic insulator—a state in which the most tightly bound electron-hole pair costs less energy than the single-particle gap, so excitons form spontaneously rather than being created by light. In the authors' GW/Bethe-Salpeter and metaGGA-based modified BSE calculations, the first dark exciton has a binding energy of 285–586 meV against a band gap of 95–169 meV, and in the scissor-adjusted GW+BSE run the dark exciton sits at −0.195 eV, below the gap. The paper also shows that nanoribbons cut from the same monolayer can be switched between metallic, semimetallic, and semiconducting behavior (gaps 29.7–60.8 meV) and between ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic edge order by choosing Ni or Ta edges, ribbon width, and H/F saturation. If these predictions hold, Ta2Ni3Te5 becomes a single material platform for studying exciton condensation and second-order topology and for building edge-tunable nanoelectronic and spintronic devices.","feed_headline":"Exciton binding beats band gap in Ta2Ni3Te5 monolayer","feed_subtitle":"First dark exciton binds at 285–586 meV against a 95–169 meV gap, marking the monolayer as an excitonic insulator.","key_machinery":"The load-bearing object is the exciton binding energy $E_b = E_g - E_{\\mathrm{exc}}$, computed by the Bethe-Salpeter equation (the many-body equation for correlated electron-hole pairs) and by a metaGGA-based modified BSE that replaces full GW with a screened hybrid-style kernel. The excitonic-insulator condition is simply $E_b > E_g$: the lowest exciton is pulled below the conduction band edge, so the ground state should contain a finite density of excitons. The paper's strongest evidence is the first dark exciton at $-0.195$ eV in the scissor-adjusted BSE and binding energies of $0.586$ eV (LAK) and $0.592$ eV (r2SCAN) against gaps of $0.153$ and $0.169$ eV. For the nanoribbons, the operative mechanism is edge chemistry: the Ni $d$-orbital occupation changes with H versus F saturation and ribbon width, which flips the system between semiconducting, metallic, and magnetically ordered edge states.","core_discovery":"On its own terms, the central discovery is that the Ta2Ni3Te5 monolayer is an excitonic insulator. After the G0W0 band gap is scissor-corrected to 95 meV to match the experimental STS gap, the Bethe-Salpeter calculation places the first dark exciton at −0.195 eV, giving a binding energy of 285 meV that exceeds the gap; the r2SCAN and LAK based modified BSE calculations give binding energies of 490–586 meV against gaps of 153–169 meV. These negative-energy excitons imply that the low-energy excitations are excitonic rather than single-particle, which the authors use to explain why the STS gap (90–100 meV) is far smaller than the G0W0 quasiparticle gap (417 meV). The same study reports that Ni-edged or Ta-edged nanoribbons host conducting, semiconducting, or semimetallic bands with edge magnetism controlled by termination chemistry, with ferromagnetic edge Ni atoms in F-saturated ribbons and antiferromagnetic coupling in the widest ribbon.","pith_inferences":["Editorial inference: if the EI picture is right, temperature-dependent STS or ARPES on monolayer Ta2Ni3Te5 should reveal a gap that closes or renormalizes at a condensation temperature, analogous to observations in Ta2Pd3Te5; the paper does not predict that temperature.","Editorial inference: because the unadjusted G0W0+BSE calculation places the first dark exciton at +0.14 eV (binding 276 meV, below the 417 meV gap), a single experimental determination of the quasiparticle gap would decide the matter without further modeling.","Editorial inference: the ~1.5 nm exciton extent along Ta chains suggests dielectric environment and strain should tune Eb across the EI boundary, which could be tested by placing the monolayer on different substrates or applying uniaxial strain.","Editorial inference: the nanoribbon rule implied by the calculations—fluorine withdraws charge from edge Ni and switches hydrogen-passivated semiconductors to ferromagnetic metals—could be tested by edge-selective STS and transport on patterned ribbons."],"forward_implications":["Monolayer Ta2Ni3Te5 should show a low-energy optical response governed by a dark exciton below the gap, with strong in-plane anisotropy; absorption along the chains peaks near 0.2 eV.","The 90–100 meV gap seen by STS should be interpreted as a renormalized excitonic gap, not the quasiparticle gap, so combined GW/BSE calculations are needed to interpret such measurements in this material.","F-saturated Ni-edged nanoribbons are predicted to conduct through edge Ni d-channels with ferromagnetic (narrow) or antiferromagnetic (wide) edge ordering, making them candidate spin-current channels.","H-saturated Ta-edged nanoribbons (4TNTrb-Ta-H, 6TNTrb-Ta-H) are direct-gap semiconductors with quasi-1D conduction and approximately Dirac-like band crossings near Γ, good settings for Luttinger-liquid or correlated-edge physics.","The predicted EI state does not change the Z2 number, so exciton condensation and second-order topological corner states may coexist in the monolayer."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"Supplies the experimental STS gap of 90–100 meV that is used as the target for the scissor-corrected BSE calculation.","marker":"Ref. 21"},{"why":"Provides the BerkeleyGW implementation of G0W0 quasiparticle calculations and Coulomb truncation used to obtain the 417 meV gap.","marker":"[35]"},{"why":"Provides the Bethe-Salpeter equation framework used to compute the exciton spectrum and binding energies.","marker":"[36]"},{"why":"Establishes the metaGGA-based modified BSE approach on an excitonic-insulator monolayer, the method that yields the 490–586 meV binding energies here.","marker":"[37]"},{"why":"Supplies the screening-dependent hybrid functional formulation underlying the modified BSE kernel.","marker":"[38]"},{"why":"Supplies the r2SCAN metaGGA functional used for nanoribbon relaxation and for one of the mBSE gaps and bindings.","marker":"[41]"},{"why":"Supplies the LAK metaGGA functional used for the alternative mBSE calculation with a 153 meV gap and 586 meV binding energy.","marker":"[47]"},{"why":"Provides the HSE hybrid functional gap of 380 meV used as a comparison point for the quasiparticle gap.","marker":"[51]"},{"why":"Defines the double band inversion and second-order topology of Ta2Ni3Te5 monolayers that the paper builds on to interpret gaps and edge states.","marker":"[19]"},{"why":"Documents an experimentally confirmed excitonic insulator state in the isostructural Ta2Pd3Te5, supporting the interpretation of STS gaps as renormalized excitonic gaps.","marker":"[15]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["Ta2Ni3Te5 monolayer: exciton binding exceeds band gap","Dark exciton binding exceeds gap in Ta2Ni3Te5","Excitonic insulator Ta2Ni3Te5: negative-energy excitons","Edge-designed Ta2Ni3Te5 nanoribbons: metals to semiconductors","Ta2Ni3Te5: excitons bind tighter than gap"],"cache_read_input_tokens":3200,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The result rests on treating the 90–100 meV STS gap as the quasiparticle gap in the BSE calculation even though the paper also argues that this measured gap is a renormalized excitonic gap; if the true quasiparticle gap is the unadjusted G0W0 value of 417 meV, the first dark exciton sits above the gap and the excitonic insulator claim fails.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Ta2Ni3Te5 monolayer: exciton binding exceeds band gap","Dark exciton binding exceeds gap in Ta2Ni3Te5","Excitonic insulator Ta2Ni3Te5: negative-energy excitons","Edge-designed Ta2Ni3Te5 nanoribbons: metals to semiconductors","Ta2Ni3Te5: excitons bind tighter than gap"]},"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","effort":"low","cost_usd":0.001711,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":6779,"prompt_tokens":957,"completion_tokens":5822,"prompt_tokens_details":{"cached_tokens":384},"prompt_cache_hit_tokens":384,"prompt_cache_miss_tokens":573,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":5725}},"tokens_in":573,"tokens_out":5822,"duration_ms":44358,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":5725,"cache_read_input_tokens":384,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-08-07T12:57:01.421787+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"deepseek-v4-flash"},"falsifier":"Measure the monolayer's quasiparticle band gap directly with ARPES or with tunneling spectroscopy configured to resolve single-particle states: a gap near 417 meV would refute the EI claim because the paper's own unscissored BSE calculation then puts the first dark exciton at +0.14 eV, above the gap. A temperature-dependent gap renormalization in STS or optical absorption below a critical temperature would support it.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":"Deslippe, G","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Provides the BerkeleyGW implementation of G0W0 quasiparticle calculations and Coulomb truncation used to obtain the 417 meV gap."},{"cited_title":"Rohlfing and S","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Provides the Bethe-Salpeter equation framework used to compute the exciton spectrum and binding energies."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Establishes the metaGGA-based modified BSE approach on an excitonic-insulator monolayer, the method that yields the 490–586 meV binding energies here."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the screening-dependent hybrid functional formulation underlying the modified BSE kernel."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the r2SCAN metaGGA functional used for nanoribbon relaxation and for one of the mBSE gaps and bindings."},{"cited_title":"Lebeda, T","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the LAK metaGGA functional used for the alternative mBSE calculation with a 153 meV gap and 586 meV binding energy."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Provides the HSE hybrid functional gap of 380 meV used as a comparison point for the quasiparticle gap."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Defines the double band inversion and second-order topology of Ta2Ni3Te5 monolayers that the paper builds on to interpret gaps and edge states."},{"cited_title":"Zhang, Y","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Documents an experimentally confirmed excitonic insulator state in the isostructural Ta2Pd3Te5, supporting the interpretation of STS gaps as renormalized excitonic gaps."}],"review_version":1}