Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Two-dimensional M2X2 family with emerging semiconducting, semimetallic, and magnetic properties

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A DFT screen of 60 candidate M2X2 monolayers predicts 35 stable compounds that split into direct-gap semiconductors (Zn, Cd), spin-orbit-opened semimetals (Ti, Zr, Hf, Tc, Re), and intrinsic magnets such as Mn2X2 and Fe2X2.

desk verdict A broad but internally inconsistent 2D screening whose headline '35 thermodynamically stable' count is contradicted by the paper's own positive formation energies and phonon-stability count. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02240 v1 pith:SPKRJLLK submitted 2025-05-04 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Yasin Yekta , Hamidreza Ramezani , Hanif Hadipour , Seyed Akbar Jafari This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords two-dimensionalmaterialsM2X2monolayerstransition-metalchalcogenidesdensityfunctionaltheorydirectband-gapsemiconductorDiracsemimetalspin-orbitcouplingintrinsic2Dmagnetism
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

The paper predicts a new family of two-dimensional materials with formula M2X2, where M is a transition metal and X is S, Se, or Te, built as two stacked buckled honeycomb MX layers. Screening 60 candidates by density functional theory, the authors find 35 that are both thermodynamically and dynamically stable, with electronic behavior that depends sharply on the metal. The central results are a set of material classes: Zn and Cd compounds are direct-gap semiconductors with gaps of 0.9–2.6 eV at the PBE level and 1.3–3.7 eV at the HSE level; Ti, Zr, Hf, Tc, and Re compounds are zero-gap semiconductors or semimetals whose spin-orbit coupling opens a gap of roughly 0.1 eV; and several members, including Mn2X2 and Fe2X2 compounds, carry intrinsic magnetic order. A sympathetic reader cares because this is a single structural family in which semiconducting, semimetallic, and magnetic behaviors all appear, offering tunable platforms for optoelectronics, infrared detection, and spintronics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the tilted tetrahedral coordination in the P-3m1 M2X2 monolayer, in which each transition metal is bonded to four chalcogens whose tetrahedron is rotated so that its threefold axis points out of the plane. The tilt reorders the d-orbital crystal field relative to a standard tetrahedron: the dz2 state overlaps strongly with the ligands and moves to high energy, while dxz and dyz sit low; dxy and dx2−y2 lie between them. This orbital ordering is the mechanism that explains the band-edge characters of the semimetallic and semiconducting members, and combined with the d-electron count it yields the metal/semiconductor/magnetic classification. The magnetic analysis leans on the M–X–M bond angles (60–65°), which the paper uses with Goodenough–Kanamori–Anderson superexchange rules to argue that direct AFM exchange dominates over FM superexchange in most magnetic members.

What would settle it

Synthesizing one representative of each class—for example Zn2S2, Zr2S2, and Fe2Te2—would test the predictions directly: an optical gap outside the predicted 1.3–3.7 eV for Zn2S2, a measured band structure without the predicted near-degeneracy for Zr2S2, or the absence of spontaneous magnetization in Fe2Te2 would contradict the corresponding classification. A cheaper computational falsifier is to relax a competing polymorph, such as an octahedrally coordinated or differently stacked variant, for one of the 35 compounds and find it lower in energy than P-3m1, which would break the stability census.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the tilted-tetrahedral P-3m1 M2X2 motif is a stable structural platform across a wide range of transition metals and chalcogens, and that its ligand-field splitting organizes the compounds into distinct electronic classes. The stable inventory contains 35 members. Among them, the d10 metals Zn and Cd give direct-gap semiconductors, with HSE06 gaps from 1.3 to 3.7 eV and band gaps decreasing from S to Te. The compounds of Ti, Zr, Hf, Tc, and Re are zero-gap semiconductors or semimetals at the PBE level; including spin-orbit coupling shifts the conduction-band minimum up and the valence-band maximum down, opening a gap of about 0.1 eV. The magnetic members include antiferromagnetic Mn2X2 (X=S, Se) and ferromagnetic Fe2X2 (X=Se, Te), Ti2Te2, and others, with DFT-derived exchange constants reported for model-Hamiltonian studies. The paper also shows that the orbital character of the band edges follows the tilted-tetrahedral d-level ordering—dz2 high, dxz/dyz low—and that in Tc2S2 a Dirac cone coexists with a quadratic band, with strain able to separate them.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the single tilted-tetrahedral P-3m1 crystal structure is the relevant phase for every M2X2 candidate, and that comparing one ferromagnetic with one antiferromagnetic spin arrangement is enough to fix the magnetic ground state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Zn- and Cd-based M2X2 monolayers should behave as direct-gap semiconductors in the visible range, with HSE06 gaps of 1.3–3.7 eV, making them candidates for solar cells and optoelectronic devices.
  • The Ti/Zr/Hf/Tc/Re members should become narrow-gap semiconductors once spin-orbit coupling is included, with roughly 0.1 eV gaps relevant for infrared detection, and Tc2S2 specifically offers a strain-tunable Dirac cone alongside a quadratic band.
  • If the magnetic assignments hold, Mn2S2 and Mn2Se2 provide intrinsic antiferromagnetic monolayers and Fe2Se2, Fe2Te2, and Ti2Te2 provide intrinsic ferromagnetic monolayers, with exchange constants that can feed estimates of magnetic ordering temperatures.
  • The bond-angle rule (60–65° M–X–M, favoring AFM direct exchange) offers a structural criterion for guessing the magnetic order of future M2X2 compounds before expensive spin calculations.
  • The mechanical stiffness of stable members is comparable to MoS2, and positive phonon and elastic stability make the family a plausible target for experimental growth or exfoliation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A design rule follows if the tilted-tetrahedral d-level ordering is generic: counting electrons in the low dxz/dyz manifold and the high dz2 manifold should predict where the Fermi level falls, so the same screen could be extended to metals and chalcogens outside the 60 candidates studied here.
  • The roughly 0.1 eV spin-orbit gap in the zero-gap members invites a topological check; if these gaps are nontrivial, the family would double as a quantum-spin-Hall platform, a question the paper does not address.
  • The FM/AFM labels rest on comparing two collinear configurations; a systematic test with stripe, zigzag, or noncollinear orders, and with explicit Hubbard U corrections, would show whether the reported ground states survive, and would strengthen the exchange-constant estimates.
  • Strain sweeps like the one done for Tc2S2 could be repeated on Re2X2 or on the other semimetallic members; if similar Dirac-versus-quadratic separation appears, strain becomes a general tuning knob for the family rather than a property of one compound.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a first-principles screen of 60 hypothetical M2X2 monolayers (M = transition metals from groups 3–11; X = S, Se, Te) in a P-3m1 tilted-tetrahedral structure. It claims the discovery of 35 thermodynamically and dynamically stable members, which are classified as metals, direct-gap semiconductors (Zn and Cd chalcogenides), zero-gap semiconductors or semimetals (Ti, Zr, Hf, Tc, Re chalcogenides) with a roughly 0.1 eV gap opened by spin–orbit coupling, and magnetic systems such as Mn2X2, Fe2X2, and Ti2Te2. Stability is assessed from formation energies relative to elemental bulk phases, phonon dispersions, AIMD for two representative compounds, and elastic constants; magnetic exchange constants are derived from FM/AFM total-energy differences using cRPA-computed U and J values.

Significance. If the inventory and property assignments were correct, the work would be a useful addition to 2D materials screening: it identifies a single structural family with direct band gaps up to 3.7 eV at the HSE level, d-electron Dirac-like semimetals, and several magnetic monolayers. The use of cRPA rather than fitted Hubbard parameters, the phonon and AIMD checks, and the strain-dependent band-structure analysis for Tc2S2 are positive features. However, the headline claims are currently undercut by internal inconsistencies in the stability count, the formation-energy data, and the magnetic/SOC statements. These issues are central to the paper's main claims and must be resolved before the results can be relied upon.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Table 1, Abstract] The formation energy is defined as Ef = Etot(M2X2) − 2E(M) − 2E(X) against the most stable elemental bulk phases. Under this definition, a positive Ef means the monolayer is higher in energy than its elemental constituents and cannot be called thermodynamically stable in the usual sense. Among the 35 compounds listed as stable in Table 2 and included in the abstract's '35 thermodynamically and dynamically stable' claim, at least seven have positive formation energies: Fe2Te2 (+0.06), Tc2Te2 (+0.11), Ru2Se2 (+0.03), Ru2Te2 (+0.15), Ta2Te2 (+0.06), Re2S2 (+0.10), and Re2Se2 (+0.20 eV/f.u.). No convex-hull search against competing bulk MxXy phases is reported, so even a negative Ef relative to elemental phases does not by itself establish thermodynamic stability. The count of 35 is therefore not supported as stated, and the stability criterion must be redefined or the inventory revised.
  2. [Section 3.1, Table 2, Abstract, Conclusion] The text states that 'Twenty-seven compounds are expected to be stable based on the phonon calculations,' while Table 2 presents elastic data for 35 'stable M2X2 structures' and the abstract and conclusion claim 35 thermodynamically and dynamically stable materials. The relationship between these numbers is not explained: are the remaining eight compounds dynamically stable but not mechanically stable, or is one of the counts simply wrong? The central inventory claim needs a single explicit stability workflow (formation-energy threshold, phonon criterion, mechanical criterion) and a consistent count across the abstract, main text, tables, and conclusion.
  3. [Abstract, Section 3.3.2, Table 1] The abstract states that for M2X2 (M = Ti, Zr, Hf, Tc, Re) the inclusion of spin–orbit coupling leads to a gap opening of 0.1 eV. Table 1 reports PBE+SOC gaps of 0.00 eV for Tc2S2, Tc2Se2, Re2S2, and Re2Se2, and values of 0.01–0.11 eV for the Ti, Zr, and Hf compounds, not a uniform 0.1 eV. The text itself notes that Tc2S2 remains a semimetal at the HSE level, so the abstract's blanket statement is contradicted by the paper's own data. The SOC gap-opening claim must be restated to match the tabulated results, with the Re and Tc cases explicitly separated from the Ti/Zr/Hf cases.
  4. [Introduction, Section 3.3.3, Table 3, Abstract, Conclusion] The magnetic assignments are internally inconsistent. The introduction names 'three ferromagnetic systems, namely Fe2X2(X=Se, Te), and Ti2Se2,' but Table 3 lists Fe2Se2 as antiferromagnetic (Eex = −102.1 meV) and Ti2Te2, not Ti2Se2, as ferromagnetic. The abstract names Ti2Te2 as magnetic while the conclusion says Ti2Se2. In addition, the magnetic ground state is determined by comparing only one ferromagnetic and one antiferromagnetic spin configuration within a single P-3m1 structure; no search over other magnetic orderings or competing structural polymorphs is reported, so the FM/AFM labels are conditional on that limited phase space. The discussion of Em = EFM − ENM is also confusing: the sentence 'The non-positive values of the first column ... indicates that non-magnetic states is now the lowest energy state' is the opposite of what the definition implies.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2] The Poisson's ratio is stated as ν = C11/C12, but the quoted values (0.29–0.54) correspond to C12/C11. The formula should be corrected to ν = C12/C11.
  2. [References and text] There are several typographical errors: 'Ernzerhorf' in reference 15, 'vice vesa' in Section 2, 'relativisitc' in Section 3.3.2, and '2,21' instead of '2.21' for the Ni2S2 bond length in Table 1.
  3. [Table 1] The z coordinates in Table 1 are given on an absolute scale (values around 7–11 Å) rather than as fractional coordinates. The caption should clarify the cell geometry or provide fractional coordinates, since the text elsewhere describes the atomic positions in fractional coordinates.
  4. [Section 3.3.3, Table 3] The cRPA-derived U and J values are not reported, even though the Stoner criterion and the values of I = (U + 6J)/5 depend on them. Reporting U and J (or a reference to the full set of values) would allow the Stoner argument to be checked.
  5. [Equation (1)] The rotation matrix in Equation (1) is garbled in the text; the entries are not legible as printed. This should be typeset properly so that the tilted-tetrahedron discussion can be followed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DFT, cRPA, and phonon-based predictions are self-contained; self-citations are contextual and not load-bearing. The internal stability-count inconsistency is a correctness issue, not a circular step.

full rationale

I find no circular step in the claimed derivation chain. The stability screening is a direct DFT workflow: formation energies are computed by the stated total-energy difference, phonon dispersions are computed by finite-displacement DFT, and the material inventory is a classification of those calculations, not a fitted output. Electronic band gaps are PBE/HSE eigenvalues; SOC gaps are the same band structures with spin-orbit coupling; magnetic ground states are total-energy comparisons of FM, NM, and AFM configurations; U and J are obtained by cRPA, an independent first-principles method, so the Stoner-criterion argument is not a fit of the magnetic labels. The exchange constant JH is a straightforward energy-difference observable defined by Eq. 2, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Self-citations (refs. 26 and 27) appear only in contextual statements about prior observation of similar semimetal behavior and do not supply an equation, ansatz, or fitted value to the central predictions. There is a non-circular weakness: the abstract's claim of '35 thermodynamically and dynamically stable' materials conflicts with Sec. 3.1's statement that 'Twenty-seven compounds are expected to be stable based on the phonon calculations,' and several Table 1 entries with positive formation energies are included in the stable inventory. That undermines the support for the headline count, but it is a correctness issue, not a reduction of a prediction to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the assumed prototype structure, the chosen DFT approximations, and a limited magnetic configuration search. No free parameters are fitted to data, and no new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption PBE-GGA total energies and band structures are accurate enough for the ground-state classification of these transition-metal compounds without Hubbard U
    The authors use PBE for all ordering and stability energies and only apply HSE06 to band gaps; no DFT+U treatment is used for the correlated 3d magnetic systems. This modeling choice affects the reliability of the magnetic and semimetal assignments.
  • ad hoc to paper The P-3m1 tilted-tetrahedral structure is the ground-state geometry for every M2X2 candidate
    All 60 candidates are optimized starting from the same AB-stacked honeycomb bilayer prototype (Sec. 2); competing structural phases are not searched, so stability claims are conditional on this prototype.
  • ad hoc to paper One ferromagnetic and one antiferromagnetic spin configuration are sufficient to determine the magnetic ground state
    Magnetic order is assigned by comparing EFM and EAFM from a single AFM pattern shown in Fig. S7; other AFM orderings or noncollinear states are not considered, which could change the FM/AFM labels.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two-dimensional M2X2 family with emerging semiconducting, semimetallic, and magnetic properties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SPKRJLLK

@misc{pith2026250502240,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two-dimensional M2X2 family with emerging semiconducting, semimetallic, and magnetic properties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SPKRJLLK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02240}
}
read the original abstract

The exploration for novel two-dimensional (2D) materials with diverse electronic characteristics has attracted growing interest in recent years. Using density functional theory (DFT) calculations, we have predicted a new family of 2D transition-metal (TM) based compounds under the nomenclature M_2X_2 (where M represents TMs, and X denotes chalcogen elements like S, Se, and Te). Our investigation delves into the examination of the formation energies, dynamical/thermal stabilities, mechanical properties, electronic structures, and magnetic properties of various systems within this family. Through our computational analyses, we have discovered a total of 35 thermodynamically and dynamically stable M_2X_2 monolayer materials that exhibit remarkable diversity in terms of their electronic and magnetic properties. Our findings will pave the way for the experimental realization of various M_2X_2 structures in the near future. In particular, among the predicted compounds, M_2X_2(M=Zn, Cd; X=S, Se, Te) are a direct band-gap semiconductor with band gaps between 0.9 to 2.6 eV (1.3 to 3.7 eV) by DFT+PBE (hybrid functional HSE) calculations. M_2X_2(M=Ti, Zr, Hf, Tc, Re) are zero-gap semiconductor (semimetals) in standard DFT+PBE calculation. Inclusion of spin-orbit coupling leads to a gap opening of 0.1 eV. Notably, our analysis has also unveiled the magnetic nature of certain materials, such as Mn_2X_2(X=S, Se), Fe_2X_2(X=Se, Te), and Ti_2Te_2. The prediction of semiconducting (magnetic) M_2X_2 materials not only offers valuable insights into the underlying electronic properties (magnetism) of 2D systems but also positions these materials as promising candidates for the development of advanced electronic (spintronic) devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02240 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Colors online) (a) Side view and (b) top view of the single layer crystal of M2X2. (c) Presentation of tetrahedrons in side view crystal structure. (d) One TM bonded with four X atoms in conventional tetrahedral coordination. (e) Tilted tetrahedral coordination of one TM and four chalcogen X atoms. The blue and yellow spheres denote M and X atoms, respectively. Crystal field splitting of d orbitals in (f) Conventio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Colors online) Phonon dispersion of M2X2 monolayers (a) Zr2S2, (b) Mn2Se2, (c) Re2S2, and (d) Tc2S2. 3/16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Colors online) (a) and (b) The evolution of energy during the simulation, time-dependent temperature fluctuation, and the final snapshots of the resulting geometries at 300 K of Tc2S2 and Zn2S2 through AIMD calculations. 3 Results and discussion 3.1 Stability of M2X2 monolayers Let us start by discussing the energetics and stability of M2X2 monolayers. Our calculations encompass a wide range of compounds, specifica… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Colors online) Band structure and DOS projected onto d states of the M atom (blue color) as well as on p states of the X atoms (orange color) for M2S2 materials. For spin-polarized calculations, dark color (light color) correspond to spin-up (spin-down) states. 7/16 …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Colors online) PBE, PBE+SOC, HSE06, and SOC+HSE06 band structure of (a) Tc2S2, (b) Zr2S2, (c) Ta2S2, and (d) Zn2S2. The Fermi level is set to zero energy. To further analyze the orbital character in band structure of semimetallic systems, we have investigated the proj…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Colors online) The orbital-projected band structure for d electrons of TM atom of (a)-(e) Zr2S2 and (f)-(j) Tc2S2 based on DFT-PBE. the Dirac cone. Since the Dirac cone in Tc2X2 and Re2X2 occurs at the K point similarly to the well known graphene, where relativisitc f…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Colors online) The total band structure for Tc2S2 strained structures with (a) free state (not strain) (b) 2% tensile strain, (c) 5% tensile strain, and (d) 12% tensile strain based on DFT-PBE. families of 2D materials possessing intrinsic magnetically non-trivial sta…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E. C. Ahn, npj 2D Materials and Applications 4, 17 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    H. Li, J. Wu, Z. Yin, H. Zhang, Acc. Chem. Res. 47, 1067 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Avsar, H

    A. Avsar, H. Ochoa, F. Guinea, B. Ozyilmaz, B. J. van Wees, and I. J. Vera-Muran, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 021003 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    S. H. Suk, S. B. Seo, Y . S. Cho, J. Wang, and S. Sim, Nanophotonics13, 107 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    H. Chen, J. Zhang, D. Kan, J. He, M. Song, J. Pang, S. Wei, and K. Chen, Crystals 12, 1381 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Manzeli, D

    S. Manzeli, D. Ovchinnikov, D. Pasquier, O. V . Yazyev, A. Kis, Nat. Rev. Mater.2, 17033 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    H. R. Ramezani, E. Sasioglu, H. Hadipour, H. Rahimpour Soleimani, C. Friedrich, S. Blugel, and I. Mertig, Phys. Rev. B 109, 125108 (2024). 13/16

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Gogotsi and Babak Anasori, ACS Nano13, 8491 (2019)

    Y . Gogotsi and Babak Anasori, ACS Nano13, 8491 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Hadipour and Y

    H. Hadipour and Y . Yekta, Phys. Rev. B100, 195118 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Huang, G

    B. Huang, G. Clark, E. Navarro-Moratalla, D. R. Klein, R. Cheng, K. L. Seyler, D. Zhong, E. Schmidgall, M. A. McGuire, D. H. Cobden, W. Yao, D. Xiao, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and X. Xu, Nature546, 270 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Y .-L. Hong, Z. Liu, L. Wang, T. Zhou, W. Ma, C. Xu, S. Feng, L. Chen, M.-L. Chen, D.-M. Sun, X. -Q. Chen, H. -M. Cheng, and W. Ren, Science 369, 670 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Lei Wang, Yongpeng Shi, Mingfeng Liu, et al., Nature Communications12, 2361 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Yan Yin, Qihua Gong, Min Yi, Wanlin Guo, Advanced Functional Materials33, 2214050 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Physical review letters77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  7. [15]

    J. Heyd, G. E. Scuseria, and M. J. Ernzerhof, Chem. Phys. 118 8207 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    K. L. Seyler, D. Zhong, D. R. Klein, Sh. Gao, X. Zhang, B. Huang, E. Navarro-Moratalla, L. Yang, D. H. Cobden, M. A. McGuire, W. Yao, D. Xiao, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and X. Xu, Nat. Phys.14, 277 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Ch. Gong, L. Li, Zh. Li, H. Ji, A. Stern, Y . Xia, T. Cao,W. Z. Q. Qiu, R. J. Cava, S. G. Louie, J. Xia, and X. Zhang, Nature (London) 546, 265 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Bonilla, S

    M. Bonilla, S. Kolekar, Y . Ma, H. C. Diaz, V . Kalappattil, R. Das, T. Eggers, H. R. Gutierrez, M. H. Phan, and M. Batzill, Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 289 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Karbalaee Aghaee, S

    A. Karbalaee Aghaee, S. Belbasi, and H. Hadipour, Phys. Rev. B 105, 115115 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Born M and K

    M. Born M and K. Huang, Dynamical Theory of Crystal Lattices (Clarendon) (1954)

    1954

  13. [21]

    Mouhat and F-X Coudert, Phys

    F. Mouhat and F-X Coudert, Phys. Rev. B90 224104 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Sahin, S

    H. Sahin, S. Cahangirov, M. Topsakal, E. Bekaroglu, E. Akturk, R. Senger and S. Ciraci, Phys. Rev. B,80, 155453 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    Cakir, F

    D. Cakir, F. M. Peeters and C. Sevik, Appl. Phys. Lett.,104, 203110 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Bafekry, M

    A. Bafekry, M. Faraji, D. Hoat, M. Shahrokhi, M. Fadlallah, F. Shojaei, S. Feghhi, M. Ghergherehchi, and D. Gogova, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys 54 155303 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Jinying Wang, Shibin Deng, Zhongfan Liu, and Zhirong Liu, National Science Review2, 22 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    Yekta, H

    Y . Yekta, H. Hadipour, and S. A. Jafari, Communications Physics6, 46 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Yekta, H

    Y . Yekta, H. Hadipour, E. Sasioglu, C. Friedrich, S. Jafari, S. Blugel, and I. Mertig, Physical Review Materials5, 034001 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    M. C. De Siena, S. E. Creutz, A. Regan, P. Malinowski, Q. Jiang, K. T. Kluherz, Gu. Zhu, Zh. Lin, J. J. De Yoreo, X. Xu, J. H. Chu, and D. R. Gamelin, Nano Lett. 20, 2100 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    T. Kong, K. Stolze, E. I. Timmons, J. Tao, D. Ni, S. Guo, Z. Yang, R. Prozorov, and R. J. Cava, Adv. Mater.31, 1808074 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Duvjir, B

    G. Duvjir, B. K. Choi, I. Jang, S. Ulstrup, S. Kang, T. T. Ly, S. Kim, Y . H. Choi, C. Jozwiak, A. Bostwick, E. Rotenberg, J.-G. Park, R. Sankar,K.-S. Kim, J. Kim, and Y . J. Chang, Nano Lett.18, 5432 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    X. Wang, D. Li, Z. Li, C. Wu, C.-M. Che, G. Chen, and X. Cui, ACS Nano15, 16236 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Lasek, P

    K. Lasek, P. M. Coelho, K. Zberecki, Y . Xin, S. K. Kolekar, J. Li, and M. Batzill, ACS Nano14, 8473 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Purbawati, J

    A. Purbawati, J. Coraux, J. V ogel, A. Hadj-Azzem, N. Wu, N. Bendiab, D. Jegouso, J. Renard, L. Marty, V . Bouchiat, A. Sulpice, L. Aballe, M. Foerster, F. Genuzio, A. Locatelli, T. O. Mentes, Z. V . Han, X. Sun, M. Nunez-Regueiro, and N. Rougemaille, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfac...

    2020

  26. [34]

    Li, Z.Wan, C.Wang, P

    B. Li, Z.Wan, C.Wang, P. Chen, B. Huang, X. Cheng, Q. Qian, J. Li, Z. Zhang, G. Sun, B. Zhao, H. Ma, R.Wu, Z.Wei, Y . Liu, L. Liao, Y . Ye, Y . Huang, X. Xu, X. Duan, W. Ji, and X. Duan, Nat. Mater.20, 818 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    L. Meng, Z. Zhou, M. Xu, S. Yang, K. Si, L. Liu, X. Wang, H. Jiang, B. Li, P. Qin, P. Zhang, J. Wang, Z. Liu, P. Tang, Y . Ye, W. Zhou, L. Bao, H.-J. Gao, and Y . Gong, Nat. Commun.12, 809 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Tahta Amrillah, Angga Hermawan, Yeremia Budi Cristian, Agustina Oktafiani, Diva Meisya Maulina Dewi, Ilma Amalina, Darminto and Jenh-Yih Juang, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 25, 18584, (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Yunliang Yue, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials434, 164 (2017). 14/16

    2017

  30. [38]

    Hao Tan, Chao Wang, Hengli Duan, Jie Tian, Qianqian Ji, Ying Lu, Fengchun Hu, Wei Hu, Guinan Li, Na Li, Yao Wang, Wangsheng Chu, Zhihu Sun, and Wensheng Yan ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces13, 28, 33363 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Akgenc, A

    B. Akgenc, A. Mogulkoc, and E. Durgun, J. Appl. Phys. 127, 084302 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Venkataramanan, Mehdi Estili, Yoshio Sakka, and Yoshiyuki Kawazoe, Adv

    Mohammad Khazaei, Masao Arai, Taizo Sasaki, Chan-Yeup Chung, Natarajan S. Venkataramanan, Mehdi Estili, Yoshio Sakka, and Yoshiyuki Kawazoe, Adv. Funct. Mater.23, 2185 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    J. Feng, D. Biswas, A. Rajan, M. D. Watson, F. Mazzola, O. J. Clark, K. Underwood, I. Markovi, M. McLaren, A. Hunter, D. M. Burn, L. B. Duffy, S. Barua, G. Balakrishnan, F. Bertran, P. Le Fèvre, T. K. Kim, G. van der Laan, T. Hesjedal, P.Wahl, and P. D. C. King, Nano Lett.18, ...

    2018

  34. [42]

    P. Chen, W. W. Pai, Y .-H. Chan, V . Madhavan, M. Y . Chou, S.-K. Mo, A.-V . Fedorov, and T.-C. Chiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 196402 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    A. O. Fumega, M. Gobbi, P. Dreher, W. Wan, C. Gonzalez- Orellana, M. Pena-Diaz, C. Rogero, J. Herrero-Martin, P. Gargiani, M. Ilyn, M. M. Ugeda, V . Pardo, and S. Blanco- Canosa, J. Phys. Chem. C123, 27802 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    P. K. J. Wong, W. Zhang, F. Bussolotti, X. Yin, T. S. Herng, L. Zhang, Y . L. Huang, G. Vinai, S. Krishnamurthi, D.W. J. A. M. Bukhvalov, Y . J. Zheng, R. Chua, A. T. N’Diaye, S. A. Morton, C.-Y . Yang, K.-H. Ou Yang, P. Torelli,W. Chen, K. Eng Johnson Goh, J. Ding, M.-T. Lin,...

    2019

  37. [45]

    R. Chua, J. Yang, X. He, X. Yu, W. Yu, F. Bussolotti, P. K. J. Wong, K. P. Loh, M. B. H. Breese, K. E. Johnson Goh, Y . L. Huang, and A. T. S. Wee, Adv. Mater.32, 2000693 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Vinai, C

    G. Vinai, C. Bigi, A. Rajan, M. D. Watson, T.-L. Lee, F. Mazzola, S. Modesti, S. Barua, M. Ciomaga Hatnean, G. Balakrishnan, P. D. C. King, P. Torelli, G. Rossi, and G. Panaccione, Phys. Rev. B101, 035404 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Zhang, L

    W. Zhang, L. Zhang, P. K. J.Wong, J. Yuan, G. Vinai, P. Torelli, G. van der Laan, Y . P. Feng, and A. T. S. Wee, ACS Nano 13, 8997 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    O. V . Yazyev and L. Helm, Phys. Rev. B75, 125408 (2007)

    2007

  41. [49]

    Hadipour, Phys

    H. Hadipour, Phys. Rev. B 99, 075102 (2019); H. Hadipour, E. Sasioglu, F. Bagherpour, C. Friedrich, S. Blugel, and I. Mertig, Phys. Rev. B 98 205123 (2018)

    2019

  42. [50]

    Sasioglu, H

    E. Sasioglu, H. Hadipour, C. Friedrich, S. Blugel, and I.Mertig, Phys. Rev. B 95, 060408(R) (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    M. M. Ugeda, I. Brihuega, F. Guinea, and J. M. Gomez- Rodriguez, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 096804 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    Bagherpour, S

    F. Bagherpour, S. Mahdavifar, E. Hosseini Lapasar, and H. Hadipour, Phys. Rev. B109, 165115 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Montaghemi, H

    A. Montaghemi, H. Hadipour, F. Bagherpour, A. Yazdani, and S. Mahdavifar Phys. Rev. B101, 075427 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Zhang, X

    Z. Zhang, X. Zou, V . H. Crespi, and B. I. Yakobson, ACS Nano7, 10475 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    L. Cai, J. He, Q. Liu, T. Yao, L. Chen, W. Yan, F. Hu, Y . Jiang, Y . Zhao, T. Hu, Z. Sun, and S. Wei, J. Am. Chem. Soc.137, 2622 (2015)

    2015

  48. [56]

    W. S. Yun, S. W. Han, S. C. Hong, I. G. Kim, and J. D. Lee, Phys. Rev. B85, 033305 (2012)

    2012

  49. [57]

    Y . Zhou, Z. Wang, P. Yang, X. Zu, L. Yang, X. Sun, and F. Gao, ACS Nano6, 9727 (2012)

    2012

  50. [58]

    Shijun Zhao, Wei Kang, and Jianming Xue, Applied Physics Letters 104, 133106 (2014)

    2014

  51. [59]

    J. A. Warner, S. K. R. Patil, S. V . Khare, and K. C. Masiulaniec, Appl. Phys. Lett.88, 101911 (2006)

    2006

  52. [60]

    J. B. Goodenough, Phys. Rev. 100, 564–573 (1955)

    1955

  53. [61]

    Kanamori, J

    J. Kanamori, J. Appl. Phys. 31, S14–S23 (1960)

    1960

  54. [62]

    V . V . Kulish and W. Huang, Journal of Materials Chemistry C5, 8734-8741 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    Stollhoff, A

    G. Stollhoff, A. M. Oles, and V . Heine, Phys. Rev. B41, 7028 (1990)

    1990

  56. [64]

    P. E. Blochl, Phys. Rev. B50 17953 (1994)

    1994

  57. [65]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthmuller, Comput. Mater. Sci. 6 15–50 (1996); Phys. Rev. B 54 11169 (1996)

    1996

  58. [66]

    A. V . Krukau, O. A. Vydrov, A. F. Izmaylov, and G. E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Phys.125 224106 (2006)

    2006

  59. [67]

    Aryasetiawan, M

    F. Aryasetiawan, M. Imada, A. Georges, G. Kotliar, S. Biermann, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Phys. Rev. B70, 195104 (2004); F. Aryasetiawan, K. Karlsson, O. Jepsen, and U. Schonberger, ibid. 74, 125106 (2006); T. Miyake, F. Aryasetiawan, and M. Imada, ibid. 80, 155134 (2009). 15/16

    2004

  60. [68]

    Nomura, M

    Y . Nomura, M. Kaltak, K. Nakamura, C. Taranto, S. Sakai, A. Toschi, R. Arita, K. Held, G. Kresse, and M. Imada, Phys. Rev. B 86, 085117 (2012); B.-C. Shih, Y . Zhang, W. Zhang, and P. Zhang, ibid.85, 045132 (2012)

    2012

  61. [69]

    Schindlmayr, C

    A. Schindlmayr, C. Friedrich, E. Sasioglu, and S. Blugel, Z. Phys. Chem. 224, 357 (2010)

    2010

  62. [70]

    http://www.flapw.de/

  63. [71]

    Pizzi et

    G. Pizzi et. al., J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 32, 165902 (2020). 16/16

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.