Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Photoemission Spectroscopic Evidence for the Dirac Nodal Line in Monoclinic Semimetal SrAs$_3$

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first complete spectroscopic trace of the predicted Dirac nodal loop in SrAs3.

desk verdict Direct ARPES evidence for a nodal loop in SrAs3 is plausible and worth publishing, but the paper overstates how unambiguously it maps the loop. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.04754 v1 pith:24HLVCNB submitted 2019-08-27 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sciquant-ph

Y. K. Song , G. W. Wang , S. C. Li , W. L. Liu , X. L. Lu , Z. T. Liu , Z. J. Li , J. S. Wen
show 3 more authors
Z. P. Yin Z. H. Liu D. W. Shen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sciquant-ph
keywords topologicalnodal-linesemimetalDiracnodalloopSrAs3angle-resolvedphotoemissionspectroscopyfirst-principlescalculationsbandinversionmonoclinicCaP3family
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 claims that the monoclinic semimetal SrAs$_3$ hosts a single Dirac nodal loop: a closed line of bulk band crossings on the $\Gamma$-$Y$-$S$ mirror plane, centered at the $Y$ point and only about $0.2\ \AA^{-1}$ across. Using angle-resolved photoemission with photon-energy-dependent cuts, the authors track the crossings as the measurement cut moves along $k_y$, reconstruct the entire loop, and match it to first-principles band-structure calculations. The loop lies close to the Fermi energy and is not buried under trivial Fermi surfaces or surface states on the natural cleavage plane, which makes SrAs$_3$ an unusually clean stage for studying nodal-line fermions. If the claim holds, this is the first direct spectroscopic confirmation of the predicted nodal loop in the CaP$_3$ family.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Dirac nodal loop itself: a one-dimensional locus in momentum space where conduction and valence bands cross, protected here by the combination of spatial-inversion and time-reversal symmetries in the $C2/m$ structure. The experimental machinery is photon-energy-dependent ARPES, whose varying photon energy moves the measurement cut through the Brillouin zone along $k_y$; a free-electron final-state model with an inner potential of $19.3\ \mathrm{eV}$ assigns each photon energy a $k_z$, and the measured $Y$-$M$ dispersions supply the crossing positions. On the theory side, density-functional calculations with a modified exchange-correlation potential and parity and orbital analyses establish the band inversion around $Y$, and a tight-binding model built from localized orbitals yields the calculated loop and surface states.

What would settle it

Measure the same $Y$-$M$ dispersions with an independent $k_z$ assignment, for example by scanning photon energies over more than one Brillouin zone, and check whether the crossings still form one closed loop of the calculated size; alternatively, look for a symmetry-breaking gap at the crossings with energy resolution better than a few millielectronvolts. If the loop fails to close continuously or the crossings split, the nodal-line identification collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, two bands of opposite parity invert near the Fermi energy only around the $Y$ point, and because the material preserves spatial-inversion and time-reversal symmetries, that inversion produces a single closed nodal loop on the $\Gamma$-$Y$-$S$ mirror plane. The loop is elliptical, about $0.2\ \AA^{-1}$ along $k_y$ and $0.15\ \AA^{-1}$ along $k_x$, with no resolvable spin-orbit splitting of the crossings. Photon-energy-dependent ARPES cuts through the loop show the crossing region shrinking and disappearing as the cut leaves $Y$, and the extracted node positions coincide with the calculated loop. The authors therefore state that they have tracked the topological non-trivial nodal line and demonstrated Dirac nodal-line fermions in SrAs$_3$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the photon-energy-to-momentum conversion used to locate the crossings, based on a simple model with one fitted inner potential, is reliable, and that the calculated band ordering near the Y point is correct; if either is wrong, the tracked crossings need not be the symmetry-protected topological nodes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SrAs$_3$ becomes the first CaP$_3$-family material with a spectroscopically tracked nodal loop, moving these predictions from calculation to measured band structure.
  • Because the loop sits near the Fermi energy with no interfering trivial states, transport and quantum-oscillation experiments on this compound can be interpreted against a single clean nodal-loop band structure.
  • The measured loop dimensions, $0.2 \times 0.15\ \AA^{-1}$, give a quantitative benchmark that future calculations of the CaP$_3$ family should reproduce.
  • The absence of a resolvable spin-orbit gap at the crossings supports the claim that spin-orbit coupling is negligible for the bulk nodes, so the Dirac description of the low-energy fermions is appropriate.
  • The drumhead surface state should be visible on projections along the $k_c$ direction but hidden on the cleavage-plane projection, indicating where future surface-sensitive experiments should look.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: quantum oscillation measurements on these crystals should show a nontrivial $\pi$ Berry phase for orbits that enclose the loop, a testable consequence not reported in this paper.
  • Editorial inference: because the loop is protected by inversion and time-reversal symmetries, breaking either symmetry with strain or magnetic doping should open a gap along the loop, allowing its size and existence to be tuned.
  • Editorial inference: the note added about a conflicting ARPES report on SrAs$_3$ suggests sample-growth details may determine whether the band inversion survives; a systematic comparison of differently grown crystals would separate material-specific effects from the intrinsic topology.
  • Editorial inference: if the spin-orbit gap is as small as calculated, increasing the effective spin-orbit coupling could drive SrAs$_3$ toward the predicted strong-topological-insulator phase, making it a candidate for a tunable topological transition.
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 manuscript reports angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) measurements and first-principles calculations on the monoclinic semimetal SrAs3, claiming direct spectroscopic evidence for a single Dirac nodal loop on the Γ–Y–S mirror plane near the Fermi energy. The authors characterize high-quality single crystals, compare measured band dispersions along Y–M and Y–N with density functional theory (GGA+MBJ), track the band crossing as a function of photon energy, and extract a loop with height 0.2 Å⁻¹ and width 0.15 Å⁻¹. The paper argues that the nodal loop is protected by inversion and time-reversal symmetries, that spin-orbit coupling effects are negligible, and that SrAs3 provides a clean platform for studying nodal-line fermions. A note added acknowledges a conflicting ARPES report on the same material.

Significance. If the claims hold, this would be the first direct spectroscopic confirmation of a Dirac nodal loop in the CaP3 family and would establish SrAs3 as a relatively clean nodal-line semimetal with simple Fermi surface topology. The paper has notable strengths: the DFT calculations are independent of the ARPES data and provide concrete predictions; the sample characterization (XRD, Laue, EDS) is careful; and the measured Y–M versus Y–N contrast is a meaningful, symmetry-specific test. The drumhead surface-state calculation and the comparison of experimental and theoretical band dispersions at two high-symmetry planes add credibility. However, the quantitative loop reconstruction and the 'unambiguous' phrasing hinge on assumptions that are not fully validated, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, Fig. 3(c) and Fig. 4(c)] The complete-loop claim rests on a single fitted inner potential V0 = 19.3 eV obtained by fitting the periodic modulation of one band feature using the free-electron final-state model. The conversion from photon energy to ky is nonlinear, and the loop's height, width, and closure are direct consequences of this mapping. No independent validation is provided: for example, a dense photon-energy scan across the same feature, a comparison of the fitted V0 with the calculated band structure along kz, or a one-step photoemission calculation. If V0 is off by a few eV, or if free-electron final states are a poor approximation in this layered monoclinic compound, the observed 'shrink and disappear' of the crossing could simply reflect the boundaries of the scanned photon range rather than the closing of a symmetry-protected nodal loop. Please provide a sensitivity analysis of the extracted loop size versus V0, or otherwise verify the kz assignment.
  2. [Fig. 4(a)–4(c)] The nodal loop is traced by manually placing blue dots on the ARPES dispersions; the extraction criterion is not described. There is no statement of whether the dots correspond to energy-distribution-curve maxima, second-derivative minima, or a fitting procedure, and the quoted uncertainties (0.2±0.02 Å⁻¹ and 0.15±0.03 Å⁻¹) are not defined or propagated from any statistical analysis. Given that the paper claims to determine the 'real size' of the nodal loop quantitatively, please describe the node-position extraction method, provide reproducibility across independent measurements, and report the uncertainty in a way that includes both the photon-energy mapping and the peak-finding errors.
  3. [Fig. 3(h), 'negligible SOC effect'] The claim that spin-orbit coupling has a negligible effect is based only on the statement that no visible lifting of the node degeneracy was resolved along Y–M. With an energy resolution of about 10 meV, this sets only an upper bound on the SOC gap. Please report the size of the SOC gap obtained in your calculations (the Supplemental Material is referenced but not available to the reader here) and state the experimental upper bound explicitly. Without this, 'negligible' is not quantitatively supported and could be misleading in comparison with other nodal-line materials.
  4. [Note added and ref. [47]] The Note added acknowledges a recent ARPES study of SrAs3 that reports different results, but it does not provide a quantitative comparison. Since the abstract and conclusions use the word 'unambiguously', a mere statement that the samples differ in growth method is insufficient. Please compare the measured band dispersions and extracted loop parameters between the two works as far as the data allow, or moderate the claim to 'our results are consistent with' rather than 'unambiguously identify' until the discrepancy is understood.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4(a)] There is a typo in the sentence describing the ARPES cut: 'the the Y point' should be 'the Y point'.
  2. [§2, paragraph 3] The phrase 'with both the spatial-inversion and time-reversal symmetries reserved' should be 'preserved' rather than 'reserved'.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'would perplex their identification' is informal; consider 'complicate their identification'.
  4. [Introduction, last sentence] The sentence 'so far direct spectroscopic evidence of such novel band structure on that is still lack' contains grammatical errors; please revise to 'direct spectroscopic evidence for such band structure is still lacking'.
  5. [Supplemental Material reference [44]] The reference to Supplemental Material does not specify its contents; please list the included measurements (e.g., EDS, X-ray diffraction, SOC calculations) so that readers know what to expect.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DFT prediction and the ARPES measurement are independent, and the only fitted parameter (inner potential) is a standard calibration that does not determine the nodal-loop claim by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (1) first-principles DFT (WIEN2K with GGA+MBJ, Wannier tight-binding, slab spectral function) predicts a single Dirac nodal loop on the Γ-Y-S plane around Y; (2) ARPES measures band dispersions and tracks the band crossings as a function of photon energy; (3) the crossings are mapped onto the kx-ky plane using the free-electron final-state model with an inner potential V0 = 19.3 eV, fitted to the periodic modulation of a band feature; (4) the extracted loop (height 0.2±0.02 Å−1, width 0.15±0.03 Å−1) is compared with the calculated loop. The comparison is genuinely predictive: the ARPES data could have contradicted the DFT band inversion or crossing topology, and the paper does report a quantitative match rather than a forced agreement. The inner-potential fit is a standard ARPES calibration based on the known crystal periodicity; it is not fitted to the nodal loop itself, so the loop's existence and closed shape are not baked into the fitting procedure. The self-citation to ref. [33] (Quan, Yin, Pickett, with a coauthor overlap) is a prior theoretical prediction, but the present experimental confirmation is independent evidence; the paper does not rely on that citation to justify the ARPES interpretation. The Note added acknowledges a conflicting ARPES report, which is a scientific concern rather than a circularity. No equation or parameter is defined in terms of the claimed result, and no 'prediction' reduces to its own input by construction. Therefore no circular steps are identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of the DFT functional and the free-electron kz mapping. The only fitted parameter is the ARPES inner potential. The topological nodal loop itself is a predicted feature of the electronic structure, not a new postulated entity introduced by this paper.

free parameters (1)
  • Inner potential V0 = 19.3 eV
    Fitted to the periodic variation of photoemission intensity along ky using the free-electron final-state model (Fig. 3c). Used to map photon energy to kz, which is essential for locating the nodal loop in the kx-ky plane.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DFT with GGA+MBJ exchange-correlation potential correctly describes the band ordering and band inversion near Y in SrAs3.
    The predicted nodal loop and its location depend on the accuracy of the calculated band structure. MBJ is a semi-local correction and can be inaccurate for semimetals, but no higher-level method is used.
  • domain assumption The free-electron final-state model maps ARPES photon energy to perpendicular momentum kz.
    Standard ARPES approximation; the inner potential is fitted within this model. The claimed evolution of the nodal loop with ky relies on this mapping.
  • domain assumption ARPES intensity maps directly reflect bulk band dispersions at the probed k points, with negligible surface-state or matrix-element distortions.
    The comparison between measured band crossings and calculated bulk bands assumes no strong photoemission matrix-element effects or surface resonances that could mimic or hide crossings.
  • standard math The nodal loop is protected by the combination of spatial-inversion and time-reversal symmetries, as established by the cited theory (ref. 34).
    This is a standard group-theoretical result for this crystal symmetry, not re-proven in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photoemission Spectroscopic Evidence for the Dirac Nodal Line in Monoclinic Semimetal SrAs$_3$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/24HLVCNB

@misc{pith2026190904754,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photoemission Spectroscopic Evidence for the Dirac Nodal Line in Monoclinic Semimetal SrAs$_3$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/24HLVCNB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.04754}
}
abstract

Topological nodal-line semimetals with exotic quantum properties are characterized by symmetry-protected line-contact bulk band crossings in the momentum space. However, in most of identified topological nodal-line compounds, these topological non-trivial nodal lines are enclosed by complicated topological trivial states at the Fermi energy ($E_F$), which would perplex their identification and hinder further applications. Utilizing angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy and first-principles calculations, we provide compelling evidence for the existence of Dirac nodal-line fermions in the monoclinic semimetal SrAs$_3$, which are close to $E_F$ and away from distraction of complex trivial Fermi surfaces or surface states. Our calculation indicates that two bands with opposite parity are inverted around \emph{Y} near $E_F$, which results in the single nodal loop at the $\Gamma$-\emph{Y}-\emph{S} plane with a negligible spin-orbit coupling effect. We track these band crossings and then unambiguously identify the complete nodal loop quantitatively, which provides a critical experimental support to the prediction of nodal-line fermions in the CaP$_3$ family of materials. Hosting simple topological non-trivial bulk electronic states around $E_F$ and no interfering with surface states on the natural cleavage plane, SrAs$_3$ is expected to be a potential platform for topological quantum state investigation and applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.04754 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) The side view of the crystal structure of SrAs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) The 3D BZ of the SrAs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a), (b) Integrated photoemission intensity maps in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Band dispersions along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G. E. V olovik, The universe in a helium droplet , V ol. 117 (Ox- ford University Press on Demand, 2003)

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Z. Fang, N. Nagaosa, K. S. Takahashi, A. Asamitsu, R. Math- ieu, T. Ogasawara, H. Yamada, M. Kawasaki, Y . Tokura, and K. Terakura, Science 302, 92 (2003)

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    A. A. Burkov, M. D. Hook, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. B 84, 235126 (2011)

    2011

  4. [4]

    C.-K. Chiu, J. C. Teo, A. P. Schnyder, and S. Ryu, Reviews of Modern Physics 88, 035005 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

    Z. Liu, B. Zhou, Y . Zhang, Z. Wang, H. Weng, D. Prabhakaran, S.-K. Mo, Z. Shen, Z. Fang, X. Dai, et al. , Science 343, 864 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Borisenko, Q

    S. Borisenko, Q. Gibson, D. Evtushinsky, V . Zabolotnyy, B. B¨uchner, and R. J. Cava, Physical review letters113, 027603 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    S.-Y . Xu, I. Belopolski, N. Alidoust, M. Neupane, G. Bian, C. Zhang, R. Sankar, G. Chang, Z. Yuan, C.-C. Lee, et al., Sci- ence 349, 613 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Huang, S.-Y

    S.-M. Huang, S.-Y . Xu, I. Belopolski, C.-C. Lee, G. Chang, B. Wang, N. Alidoust, G. Bian, M. Neupane, C. Zhang, et al., Nature communications 6, 7373 (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Huang, L

    X. Huang, L. Zhao, Y . Long, P. Wang, D. Chen, Z. Yang, H. Liang, M. Xue, H. Weng, Z. Fang,et al., Physical Review X 5, 031023 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    B. Lv, H. Weng, B. Fu, X. Wang, H. Miao, J. Ma, P. Richard, X. Huang, L. Zhao, G. Chen, et al. , Physical Review X 5, 031013 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    H. Weng, C. Fang, Z. Fang, B. A. Bernevig, and X. Dai, Phys- ical Review X 5, 011029 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    N. Xu, H. Weng, B. Lv, C. E. Matt, J. Park, F. Bisti, V . N. Stro- cov, D. Gawryluk, E. Pomjakushina, K. Conder, et al., Nature communications 7, 11006 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    S.-Y . Xu, N. Alidoust, I. Belopolski, Z. Yuan, G. Bian, T.-R. Chang, H. Zheng, V . N. Strocov, D. S. Sanchez, G. Chang, et al., Nature Physics 11, 748 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    L. Yang, Z. Liu, Y . Sun, H. Peng, H. Yang, T. Zhang, B. Zhou, Y . Zhang, Y . Guo, M. Rahn, et al. , Nature physics 11, 728 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Lv, Z.-L

    B. Lv, Z.-L. Feng, Q.-N. Xu, X. Gao, J.-Z. Ma, L.-Y . Kong, P. Richard, Y .-B. Huang, V . Strocov, C. Fang, et al. , Nature 546, 627 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Z. Zhu, G. W. Winkler, Q. Wu, J. Li, and A. A. Soluyanov, Physical Review X 6, 031003 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Bzduˇsek, Q

    T. Bzduˇsek, Q. Wu, A. R¨uegg, M. Sigrist, and A. A. Soluyanov, Nature 538, 75 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    C. Fang, Y . Chen, H.-Y . Kee, and L. Fu, Physical Review B92, 081201 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    C. Fang, H. Weng, X. Dai, and Z. Fang, Chinese Physics B 25, 117106 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Award for Outstanding Member in Youth Innovation Promotion Asso- ciation CAS

    and result in drumhead-like surface states [19, 21]. To date, nodal-line states have been theoretically proposed and ∗ Equal contributions † yinzhiping@bnu.edu.cn ‡ lzh17@mail.sim.ac.cn § dwshen@mail.sim.ac.cn then experimentally confirmed in several compounds, includ- ing CaAg...

    1909 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Z. Yan, R. Bi, H. Shen, L. Lu, S.-C. Zhang, and Z. Wang, Physical Review B 96, 041103 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    R. Yu, Z. Fang, X. Dai, and H. Weng, Frontiers of Physics 12, 127202 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Wang, X.-M

    X.-B. Wang, X.-M. Ma, E. Emmanouilidou, B. Shen, C.-H. Hsu, C.-S. Zhou, Y . Zuo, R.-R. Song, S.-Y . Xu, G. Wang,et al., Physical Review B 96, 161112 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Yamakage, Y

    A. Yamakage, Y . Yamakawa, Y . Tanaka, and Y . Okamoto, Jour- nal of the Physical Society of Japan 85, 013708 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Bian, T.-R

    G. Bian, T.-R. Chang, R. Sankar, S.-Y . Xu, H. Zheng, T. Neu- pert, C.-K. Chiu, S.-M. Huang, G. Chang, I. Belopolski, et al., Nature communications 7, 10556 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    M. M. Hosen, K. Dimitri, I. Belopolski, P. Maldonado, R. Sankar, N. Dhakal, G. Dhakal, T. Cole, P. M. Oppeneer, D. Kaczorowski, et al., Physical Review B 95, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Lou, J.-Z

    R. Lou, J.-Z. Ma, Q.-N. Xu, B.-B. Fu, L.-Y . Kong, Y .-G. Shi, P. Richard, H.-M. Weng, Z. Fang, S.-S. Sun, et al. , Physical Review B 93, 241104 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    L. M. Schoop, M. N. Ali, C. Straßer, A. Topp, A. Varykhalov, D. Marchenko, V . Duppel, S. S. Parkin, B. V . Lotsch, and C. R. Ast, Nature communications 7, 11696 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Takane, Z

    D. Takane, Z. Wang, S. Souma, K. Nakayama, C. Trang, T. Sato, T. Takahashi, and Y . Ando, Physical Review B 94, 121108 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    X. Feng, C. Yue, Z. Song, Q. Wu, and B. Wen, Physical Review Materials 2, 014202 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Z. Liu, R. Lou, P. Guo, Q. Wang, S. Sun, C. Li, S. Thirupatha- iah, A. Fedorov, D. Shen, K. Liu, et al., Physical Review X 8, 031044 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    R. Lou, P. Guo, M. Li, Q. Wang, Z. Liu, S. Sun, C. Li, X. Wu, Z. Wang, Z. Sun, et al., npj Quantum Materials 3, 50 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Zhang, Z.-M

    X. Zhang, Z.-M. Yu, X.-L. Sheng, H. Y . Yang, and S. A. Yang, Physical Review B 95, 235116 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Y . Quan, Z. Yin, and W. Pickett, Physical review letters 118, 176402 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Q. Xu, R. Yu, Z. Fang, X. Dai, and H. Weng, Physical Review B 95, 045136 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    S. Li, Z. Guo, D. Fu, X.-C. Pan, J. Wang, K. Ran, S. Bao, Z. Ma, Z. Cai, R. Wang, et al., Science Bulletin 63, 535 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    L. An, X. Zhu, W. Gao, M. Wu, W. Ning, and M. Tian, Physical Review B 99, 045143 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Blaha, K

    P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, G. K. Madsen, D. Kvasnicka, and J. Luitz, An augmented plane wave+ local orbitals program for calculating crystal properties (2001)

    2001

  31. [39]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Physical review let- ters 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  32. [40]

    Tran and P

    F. Tran and P. Blaha, Physical review letters 102, 226401 (2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    Marzari, A

    N. Marzari, A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, I. Souza, and D. Van- derbilt, Reviews of Modern Physics 84, 1419 (2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, Y .-S. Lee, I. Souza, D. Vanderbilt, and N. Marzari, Computer physics communications 178, 685 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    Kune ˇs, R

    J. Kune ˇs, R. Arita, P. Wissgott, A. Toschi, H. Ikeda, and K. Held, Computer Physics Communications181, 1888 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    Q. Wu, S. Zhang, H.-F. Song, M. Troyer, and A. A. Soluyanov, Computer Physics Communications 224, 405 (2018). 6

    2018

  37. [45]

    See Supplemental Material for more details on experiments, data analysis and calculations

  38. [46]

    Bauhofer, M

    W. Bauhofer, M. Wittmann, and H. Schnering, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 42, 687 (1981)

    1981

  39. [47]

    Liebowitz and N

    D. Liebowitz and N. Shevchik, Physical Review B 17, 3825 (1978)

    1978

  40. [48]

    M. M. Hosen, B. Wang, G. Dhakal, K. Dimitri, F. Kabir, C. Sims, S. Regmi, T. Durakiewicz, D. Kaczorowski, A. Bansil, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.06365 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.