Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Anomalous Magnetotransport in the Paramagnetic State of a Magnetic Kagome Metal EuTi$_3$Bi$_4$

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that the kagome metal EuTi3Bi4 reproduces the AV3Sb5 anomalous transport signatures in its paramagnetic state, without any charge density wave, and argues the origin lies in multiband transport and van Hove…

desk verdict Solid experimental data point: first paramagnetic, CDW-free realization of AV3Sb5-like magnetotransport in EuTi3Bi4, but the van Hove interpretation is analogy, not derivation; deserves refereeing with requested revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02743 v2 pith:LSTUDYHV submitted 2025-01-06 cond-mat.str-el

Yun Shu , Xinrun Mi , Yuhao Wei , Sixue Tao , Aifeng Wang , Yisheng Chai , Dashuai Ma , Xiaolong Yang
show 1 more author
Mingquan He
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords kagomemetalEuTi3Bi4vanHovesingularitymultibandtransportanomalousHalleffectchargedensitywaveparamagneticstatemagnetotransport
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

This paper reports that EuTi3Bi4, a kagome-lattice metal that orders magnetically at 10.5 K, shows in its paramagnetic state two transport anomalies previously seen in the charge-density-wave kagome metals AV3Sb5: magnetoconductivity linear in field below about 1 T and a Hall conductivity that changes sign below about 2 T. Because EuTi3Bi4 has no charge density wave and the anomalies appear only above the magnetic transition, the authors argue that time-reversal-symmetry-breaking chiral order cannot explain them. Instead, they attribute the behavior to the multiband Fermi surface and to van Hove singularities sitting close to the Fermi level, and they support this with two-band fits to the Hall data and with band-structure calculations. If correct, the result separates the AV3Sb5-like transport signature from the CDW order that usually accompanies it.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the concave Fermi pocket that forms near the van Hove singularity VHS2 at the $M$ point of the distorted Ti kagome lattice. Because the Fermi velocity drops toward the saddle point, the pocket acts as an effective two-band system with competing electron- and hole-like contributions, producing the low-field Hall sign change; its sharp corners are invoked for the linear low-field longitudinal magnetoconductivity. The two-band Hall analysis, $\sigma_{xy}(B) = n_h e\mu_h^2 B/(1+\mu_h^2 B^2) - n_e e\mu_e^2 B/(1+\mu_e^2 B^2)$, with the zero-field conductivity constraint, quantifies the carrier densities and mobilities, and the extended Kohler rule with a temperature-dependent carrier density $n_T$ accounts for the magnetoresistance scaling.

What would settle it

A direct observation of a CDW superlattice, spontaneous loop currents, or time-reversal symmetry breaking in EuTi3Bi4 above 10.5 K would overturn the central claim; conversely, moving the Fermi level away from VHS2 by doping or pressure and watching the linear low-field magnetoconductivity and Hall sign change disappear would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the anomalous magnetotransport in EuTi3Bi4 is a band-structure effect, not an order-parameter effect. The low-field linear magnetoconductivity and the low-field Hall sign change closely match the unsubtracted transport signatures of CsV3Sb5, yet EuTi3Bi4 lacks a CDW and exhibits the anomalies only in the paramagnetic state above $T_C = 10.5$ K. The paper identifies VHS2, a van Hove singularity about 9.1 meV below the Fermi level at the $M$ point, as the key fermiological feature: the associated concave Fermi pocket with sharp corners behaves as an effective electron-hole two-band system even though it is nominally hole-like. A simple two-band model with one electron and one hole pocket reproduces the Hall conductivity and resistivity above 20 K, with low-density, high-mobility electrons dominating low fields; the same model cannot describe the linear longitudinal magnetoconductivity, which the authors attribute to the sharp-cornered pocket near the van Hove singularity.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the premise that EuTi3Bi4 truly has no charge order and no other time-reversal-symmetry-breaking state, so the resemblance to AV3Sb5 must have a band-structure origin.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The AV3Sb5-like anomalous magnetotransport can occur in a kagome metal with no CDW and no chiral order, so the signature is not a fingerprint of time-reversal symmetry breaking.
  • A paramagnetic state alone is enough to generate these anomalies, provided the Fermi surface has a van Hove singularity near $E_F$ and multiple carrier pockets.
  • The Hall sign change above 20 K is a multiband effect driven by low-density, high-mobility electrons; it should disappear when electron and hole mobilities become unbalanced, as observed below 20 K.
  • Band-structure calculations and ARPES place VHS2 about 9.1 meV below $E_F$, so small shifts of the chemical potential through doping, pressure, or strain should strongly modify the anomalies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the band-structure interpretation is right, electron or hole doping that moves $E_F$ away from VHS2 should suppress both the linear low-field magnetoconductivity and the Hall sign change; this is a testable prediction the paper does not make.
  • The close match to CsV3Sb5 suggests that some of the anomalous transport in AV3Sb5 might be reinterpreted without invoking chiral CDW order; a two-band and van Hove analysis of raw, unsubtracted AV3Sb5 data could test how much of the effect persists in the pristine phase.
  • The authors infer the absence of CDW from prior ARPES and DFT work; direct probes of hidden order in EuTi3Bi4, such as muon spin rotation or optical gyrotropy, would close the remaining gap.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports resistivity, magnetization, specific heat, and Hall measurements on single-crystal EuTi3Bi4. It identifies a linear low-field magnetoconductivity and a Z-shaped, sign-changing Hall response in the paramagnetic state above TC=10.5 K, and notes their qualitative resemblance to AV3Sb5. The authors fit the Hall data with a two-band model, extract temperature-dependent carrier densities and mobilities, and show that Kohler's rule is violated but can be rescaled with a temperature-dependent carrier-density factor. They argue that, because EuTi3Bi4 has no CDW and the anomalies occur in the paramagnetic state, time-reversal symmetry breaking is unlikely; they attribute the behavior to multiband transport and van Hove singularities near the Fermi level, based on DFT band structure and an analogy to a model by Koshelev et al.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, EuTi3Bi4 would be an important case showing that AV3Sb5-like anomalous magnetotransport does not require chiral CDW order, supporting a band-structure origin and focusing attention on VHS physics in kagome metals. The experimental data and the two-band Hall analysis are valuable, and the authors are transparent that the two-band model cannot explain the linear magnetoconductivity. However, the central attribution is currently supported only by analogy and not by a quantitative calculation for EuTi3Bi4, so the significance is conditional on additional modeling or a more circumspect claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Fig. 1(f) and Fig. 3(e)] The central attribution to van Hove singularities is asserted by analogy rather than derived. The paper explicitly states that EuTi3Bi4 does not feature a closed pocket connecting the van Hove singularities owing to the distorted kagome lattice, whereas the Koshelev model in Ref. [28] relies on a closed concave hexagonal pocket whose hole-like and electron-like sections produce the Hall sign change, and whose reconstructed sharp corners produce linear low-field sigma_xx. The lone concave pocket with sharp corners near the M point in Fig. 1(f) is not shown to reproduce either the linear magnetoconductivity or the Z-shaped Hall response. A quantitative transport calculation for EuTi3Bi4, or a clear statement that the VHS connection is a hypothesis rather than a demonstrated mechanism, is required to support the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [Sec. III, Eqs. (1)-(2), Fig. 4] The two-band model is fitted to Hall conductivity and Hall resistivity and used to explain the Hall sign change, but the low-field linear longitudinal magnetoconductivity is explicitly not described by the same model. Since the central conclusion invokes multiband transport and/or van Hove singularities as an explanation of the full set of anomalies, the paper should show that the same framework accounts for both longitudinal and Hall data. At present only the Hall data are fitted. Reporting fit residuals, parameter uncertainties, and a comparison of the model's prediction for sigma_xx(B) with the measured magnetoconductivity would make the analysis load-bearing rather than illustrative.
  3. [Sec. III, Conclusions] The exclusion of time-reversal symmetry breaking is not directly tested. The absence of CDW from prior ARPES/DFT work and the occurrence of the anomalies in the paramagnetic state are suggestive, but the paper does not rule out loop currents, hidden charge order, or magnetic scattering effects from Eu2+ moments and fluctuations above TC. The positive Curie-Weiss temperatures and the magnetization hysteresis indicate ferromagnetic correlations that could contribute to anomalous Hall-like responses. A direct test, such as comparing the extracted AHE-like component above and below TC, measuring Hall data under different field-cooling protocols, or comparing with a nonmagnetic isostructural compound, would be needed to support the strong claim that time-reversal symmetry breaking effects are unlikely.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III, first paragraph] The reference to "Fig. 2(1)" appears to be a typo and should read "Fig. 2(a)".
  2. [Sec. III, last paragraph] The equation "MR= = f [B/nT rho_xx(0)]" contains a duplicated equals sign and should be corrected.
  3. [Throughout] The spelling of Kohler's rule is inconsistent, alternating between "Kohler" and "Kohler"; please use a single spelling consistently.
  4. [Fig. 3(e) and (f)] The comparison with CsV3Sb5 would be clearer if the caption stated the normalization and field-range choices, since the absolute magnitudes of the two compounds are not directly comparable.
  5. [Figs. 4 and 5] No error bars are shown for the two-band fit parameters or for the extended-Kohler scaling factor n_T; stating the number of samples and the reproducibility of the fits would strengthen the quantitative claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Hall fit is explicitly a fit, the VHS mechanism is an external analogy, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central inference is that the anomalous magnetotransport in the paramagnetic state is likely due to multiband transport and/or van Hove singularities. I checked the derivation chain for constructional equivalence. The two-band model (Eqs. 1-2) is fitted to the measured Hall conductivity and resistivity; the authors do not claim to predict the Hall sign change from independent parameters. The fit is used diagnostically and cross-checked between sigma_xy and rho_yx. The paper explicitly concedes that this model cannot describe the low-field linear sigma_xx(B), and attributes that feature to sharp Fermi-surface corners via Ref. [28]. Ref. [28] is an external paper (Koshelev et al.), not prior work by the present authors, so the VHS mechanism is imported as an analogy rather than as a self-citation. The absence of CDW is taken from independent prior ARPES/DFT work (Refs. [34, 38]). The self-citations (Refs. [19, 20, 27, 46]) are used only as supporting examples of multiband transport in other kagome metals, not as the load-bearing derivation for EuTi3Bi4. There is no equation that reduces to its input by construction, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem invoked from the authors' own prior work. The main weaknesses are evidential: the VHS analogy is not computed for the actual Fermi surface, and the CDW absence is not directly verified in this sample. These are correctness risks, not circularity. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on a per-temperature two-band fit, a DFT band structure with a hand-set Hubbard U, an adjustable Kohler scaling parameter, and prior claims about the absence of CDW and the magnetic ground state. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Hubbard U for Eu 4f = 6 eV
    Chosen for GGA+U DFT to localize Eu 4f electrons; not fitted to transport, but affects calculated band structure used to argue for van Hove singularities near the Fermi level.
  • electron carrier density n_e(T) = not tabulated; varies with temperature
    Fitted per temperature using the two-band Hall model with a sigma_xx(0) constraint; low-density high-mobility electron pocket is central to the sign-change explanation.
  • hole carrier density n_h(T) = not tabulated; varies with temperature
    Fitted per temperature in the same two-band model; used to explain the hole-like dominant high-field Hall response.
  • electron mobility mu_e(T) = not tabulated; varies with temperature
    Fitted per temperature; high mobility of electrons is central to the low-field Hall sign change.
  • hole mobility mu_h(T) = not tabulated; varies with temperature
    Fitted per temperature in the two-band model.
  • n_T(T) in extended Kohler scaling = set to 1 at 250 K, adjusted at other temperatures
    Adjusted to collapse MR curves; presented as temperature-dependent carrier density but is a scaling parameter, not an independent measurement.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Two-band model with field-independent carrier densities and mobilities (Eqs. 1-2) describes Hall transport.
    Central to extracting carrier densities and mobilities and explaining the Hall sign change; no microscopic justification for exactly two bands beyond the multiband Fermi surface.
  • domain assumption EuTi3Bi4 has no CDW and no TRS-breaking charge order in the paramagnetic state.
    Inferred from previous ARPES/DFT (Refs 34,38) and absence of reported CDW; load-bearing for rejecting the chiral CDW explanation.
  • domain assumption Magnetic ground state can be treated as FM or the band structure is insensitive to magnetic order.
    The paper adopts the FM scenario from susceptibility and hysteresis while noting the debate; band structure stated to be similar for FM and AFM in prior work.
  • domain assumption DFT-PBE + U with Wannier interpolation yields reliable Fermi surface topology near the van Hove singularities.
    Used to identify VHS2 at -9.1 meV and the concave pocket; DFT is approximate and U is hand-set to 6 eV.
  • domain assumption Extended Kohler rule with temperature-dependent n_T is valid for EuTi3Bi4.
    Used to collapse MR curves; n_T is adjusted post hoc and interpreted as carrier density variation without independent measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anomalous Magnetotransport in the Paramagnetic State of a Magnetic Kagome Metal EuTi$_3$Bi$_4$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LSTUDYHV

@misc{pith2026250102743,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anomalous Magnetotransport in the Paramagnetic State of a Magnetic Kagome Metal EuTi$_3$Bi$_4$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LSTUDYHV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02743}
}
abstract

We investigate the electrical transport properties of a magnetic kagome metal EuTi$_3$Bi$_4$, which undergoes magnetic ordering below $T_\mathrm{c}=10.5$ K. Unlike typical magnets showing anomalous magnetotransport in their ordered states, EuTi$_3$Bi$_4$ exhibits unusual magnetotransport behaviors in its paramagnetic phase. Specifically, the magnetoconductivity shows a linear dependence on magnetic field at low fields below $\sim 1$ T, and the Hall conductivity undergoes a sign change below about 2 T. These behaviors resemble those observed in the charge density wave (CDW) phase of kagome metals $A$V$_3$Sb$_5$ ($A$ = K, Rb, Cs). The anomalous magnetotransport in $A$V$_3$Sb$_5$ has commonly been attributed to the possible emergence of a time-reversal symmetry breaking chiral CDW order. However, given the absence of CDW in EuTi$_3$Bi$_4$ and its manifestation exclusively in the paramagnetic state, the anomalous magnetotransport observed in EuTi$_3$Bi$_4$ is likely associated with multiband transport and/or the van Hove singularities near the Fermi level.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02743 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Side (left panel) and top (right panel) views of the crystal structure of EuTi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Temperature dependence of the magnetic susceptibility of EuTi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Magnetoresistance (MR) and (b) magnetoconductivity of EuTi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a, d) Two-band analysis of Hall conductivity and Hall resistivity for EuTi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Kohler’s rule scaling of MR versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    A. E. Koshelev, R. Chapai, D. Y. Chung, J. F. Mitchell, and U. Welp, Phys. Rev. B110, 024512 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  3. [2]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057 (2011)

    2011

  4. [3]

    79,066501 (2016)

    Y.Ren, Z.Qiao,andQ.Niu,Rep.Prog.Phys. 79,066501 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [4]

    Neupert, M

    T. Neupert, M. M. Denner, J.-X. Yin, R. Thomale, and M. Z. Hasan, Nat. Phys.18, 137 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    B. R. Ortiz, L. C. Gomes, J. R. Morey, M. Winiarski, M. Bordelon, J. S. Mangum, I. W. Oswald, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, J. R. Neilson, S. D. Wilson, E. Ertekin, T. M. McQueen, and E. S. Toberer, Phys. Rev. Mater. 3, 094407 (2019). 8

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    B. R. Ortiz, S. M. L. Teicher, Y. Hu, J. L. Zuo, P. M. Sarte, E. C. Schueller, A. M. M. Abeykoon, M. J. Krogstad, S. Rosenkranz, R. Osborn, R. Seshadri, L. Ba- lents, J. He, and S. D. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 247002 (2020)

    2020

  8. [7]

    B. R. Ortiz, P. M. Sarte, E. M. Kenney, M. J. Graf, S. M. L. Teicher, R. Seshadri, and S. D. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Mater. 5, 034801 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    Q. Yin, Z. Tu, C. Gong, Y. Fu, S. Yan, and H. Lei, Chin. Phys. Lett. 38, 037403 (2021)

    2021

  2. [9]

    S.-Y. Yang, Y. Wang, B. R. Ortiz, D. Liu, J. Gayles, E. Derunova, R. Gonzalez-Hernandez, L. šmejkal, Y. Chen, S. S. P. Parkin, S. D. Wilson, E. S. Toberer, T. McQueen, and M. N. Ali, Sci. Adv. 6, eabb6003 (2020)

    2020

  3. [10]

    F. H. Yu, T. Wu, Z. Y. Wang, B. Lei, W. Z. Zhuo, J. J. Ying,andX.H.Chen,Phys.Rev.B 104,L041103(2021)

    2021

  4. [11]

    Zheng, C

    G. Zheng, C. Tan, Z. Chen, M. Wang, X. Zhu, S. Al- barakati, M. Algarni, J. Partridge, L. Farrar, J. Zhou, et al., Nat. Commun.14, 678 (2023)

    2023

  5. [12]

    X. Zhou, H. Liu, W. Wu, K. Jiang, Y. Shi, Z. Li, Y. Sui, J. Hu, and J. Luo, Phys. Rev. B105, 205104 (2022)

    2022

  6. [13]

    Y. X. Jiang, J. X. Yin, M. M. Denner, N. Shumiya, B. R. Ortiz, G. Xu, Z. Guguchia, J. He, M. S. Hossain, X. Liu, J. Ruff, L. Kautzsch, S. S. Zhang, G. Chang, I. Belopol- ski, Q. Zhang, T. A. Cochran, D. Multer, M. Litskevich, Z. J. Cheng, X. P. Yang, Z. Wang, R. Thomale, T. Ne...

    2021

  7. [14]

    Wang, Y.-X

    Z. Wang, Y.-X. Jiang, J.-X. Yin, Y. Li, G.-Y. Wang, H.-L. Huang, S. Shao, J. Liu, P. Zhu, N. Shumiya, M. S. Hossain, H. Liu, Y. Shi, J. Duan, X. Li, G. Chang, P. Dai, Z. Ye, G. Xu, Y. Wang, H. Zheng, J. Jia, M. Z. Hasan, and Y. Yao, Phys. Rev. B104, 075148 (2021)

    2021

  8. [15]

    Shumiya, M

    N. Shumiya, M. S. Hossain, J.-X. Yin, Y.-X. Jiang, B. R. Ortiz, H. Liu, Y. Shi, Q. Yin, H. Lei, S. S. Zhang, G. Chang, Q. Zhang, T. A. Cochran, D. Mul- ter, M. Litskevich, Z.-J. Cheng, X. P. Yang, Z. Guguchia, S. D. Wilson, and M. Z. Hasan, Phys. Rev. B104, 035131 (2021)

    2021

  9. [16]

    D. Chen, B. He, M. Yao, Y. Pan, H. Lin, W. Schnelle, Y. Sun, J. Gooth, L. Taillefer, and C. Felser, Phys. Rev. B 105, L201109 (2022)

    2022

  10. [17]

    Mielke, D

    C. Mielke, D. Das, J.-X. Yin, H. Liu, R. Gupta, Y.- X. Jiang, M. Medarde, X. Wu, H. C. Lei, J. Chang, P. Dai, Q. Si, H. Miao, R. Thomale, T. Neupert, Y. Shi, R. Khasanov, M. Z. Hasan, H. Luetkens, and Z. Guguchia, Nature602, 245 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    L. Yu, C. Wang, Y. Zhang, M. Sander, S. Ni, Z. Lu, S. Ma, Z. Wang, Z. Zhao, H. Chen, K. Jiang, Y. Zhang, H. Yang, F. Zhou, X. Dong, S. L. Johnson, M. J. Graf, J. Hu, H.-J. Gao, and Z. Zhao, arXiv:2107.10714 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Y. Gan, W. Xia, L. Zhang, K. Yang, X. Mi, A. Wang, Y. Chai, Y. Guo, X. Zhou, and M. He, Phys. Rev. B104, L180508 (2021)

    2021

  13. [20]

    X. Mi, W. Xia, L. Zhang, Y. Gan, K. Yang, A. Wang, Y. Chai, Y. Guo, X. Zhou, and M. He, New J. Phys.24, 093021 (2022)

    2022

  14. [21]

    Liang, X

    Z. Liang, X. Hou, F. Zhang, W. Ma, P. Wu, Z. Zhang, F. Yu, J.-J. Ying, K. Jiang, L. Shan, Z. Wang, and X.-H. Chen, Phys. Rev. X11, 031026 (2021)

    2021

  15. [22]

    H. Zhao, H. Li, B. R. Ortiz, S. M. L. Teicher, T. Park, M. Ye, Z. Wang, L. Balents, S. D. Wilson, and I. Zeljkovic, Nature599, 216 (2021)

    2021

  16. [23]

    H. Chen, H. Yang, B. Hu, Z. Zhao, J. Yuan, Y. Xing, G. Qian, Z. Huang, G. Li, Y. Ye, S. Ma, S. Ni, H. Zhang, Q. Yin, C. Gong, Z. Tu, H. Lei, H. Tan, S. Zhou, C. Shen, X. Dong, B. Yan, Z. Wang, and H.-J. Gao, Nature599, 222 (2021)

    2021

  17. [24]

    Xu, Y.-J

    H.-S. Xu, Y.-J. Yan, R. Yin, W. Xia, S. Fang, Z. Chen, Y. Li, W. Yang, Y. Guo, and D.-L. Feng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 187004 (2021)

    2021

  18. [25]

    H. Li, H. Zhao, B. R. Ortiz, T. Park, M. Ye, L. Balents, Z. Wang, S. D. Wilson, and I. Zeljkovic, Nat. Phys.18, 265 (2022)

    2022

  19. [26]

    Y. Hu, X. Wu, B. R. Ortiz, X. Han, N. C. Plumb, S. D. Wilson, A. P. Schnyder, and M. Shi, Phys. Rev. B106, L241106 (2022)

    2022

  20. [27]

    X. Mi, K. Yang, Y. Gan, L. Zhang, A. Wang, Y. Chai, X. Zhou, and M. He, Tungsten5, 300 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Kohn and L

    W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev.140, A1133 (1965)

    1965

  22. [30]

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

    1994

  23. [31]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Phys. Rev. B54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  24. [32]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  25. [33]

    H. J. Kulik, M. Cococcioni, D. A. Scherlis, and N. Marzari, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 103001 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    J.Guo, L.Zhou, J.Ding, G.Qu, Z.Liu, Y.Du, H.Zhang, J. Li, Y. Zhang, F. Zhou, W. Qi, M. Cui, Y. Zhang, F. Guo, T. Wang, F. Fei, Y. Huang, T. Qian, D. Shen, Y. Song, H. Weng, and F. Song, Sci. Bull. 69, 2660 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, G. Pizzi, Y.-S. Lee, I. Souza, D. Vanderbilt, and N. Marzari, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2309 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Q. Wu, S. Zhang, H.-F. Song, M. Troyer, and A. A. Soluyanov, Comput. Phys. Commun.224, 405 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    B. R. Ortiz, H. Miao, D. S. Parker, F. Yang, G. D. Samolyuk, E. M. Clements, A. Rajapitamahuni, T. Yil- maz, E. Vescovo, J. Yan, A. F. May, and M. A. McGuire, Chem. Mater. 35, 9756 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Jiang, T

    Z. Jiang, T. Li, J. Yuan, Z. Liu, Z. Cao, S. Cho, M. Shu, Y. Yang, Z. Li, J. Liu, J. Ding, Z. Liu, J. Liu, J. Ma, Z. Sun, X. Wan, Y. Guo, D. Shen, and D. Feng, Sci. Bull. 69, 3192 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Chen, Z.-F

    H.-C. Chen, Z.-F. Lou, Y.-X. Zhou, Q. Chen, B.-J. Xu, S.-J. Chen, J.-H. Du, J.-H. Yang, H.-D. Wang, and M.-H. Fang, Chin. Phys. Lett.37, 047201 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    X. Gui, I. Pletikosic, H. Cao, H.-J. Tien, X. Xu, R. Zhong, G. Wang, T.-R. Chang, S. Jia, T. Valla, W. Xie, and R. J. Cava, ACS Cent. Sci.5, 900 (2019), pMID: 31139726

    2019

  33. [41]

    J. Ma, H. Wang, S. Nie, C. Yi, Y. Xu, H. Li, J. Jandke, W. Wulfhekel, Y. Huang, D. West, P. Richard, A. Chik- ina, V. N. Strocov, J. Mesot, H. Weng, S. Zhang, Y. Shi, T. Qian, M. Shi, and H. Ding, Adv. Mater.32, 1907565 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    H. Su, B. Gong, W. Shi, H. Yang, H. Wang, W. Xia, Z. Yu, P.-J. Guo, J. Wang, L. Ding, L. Xu, X. Li, X. Wang, Z. Zou, N. Yu, Z. Zhu, Y. Chen, Z. Liu, K. Liu, G. Li, and Y. Guo, APL Mater.8, 011109 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    K. Yang, W. Xia, X. Mi, Y. Zhang, L. Zhang, A. Wang, Y. Chai, X. Zhou, Y. Guo, and M. He, Appl. Phys. Lett. 125, 171901 (2024). 9

    2024

  36. [44]

    Mozaffari, W

    S. Mozaffari, W. R. Meier, R. P. Madhogaria, N. Peshcherenko, S.-H. Kang, J. W. Villanova, H. W. S. Arachchige, G. Zheng, Y. Zhu, K.-W. Chen, K. Jenkins, D. Zhang, A. Chan, L. Li, M. Yoon, Y. Zhang, and D. G. Mandrus, Phys. Rev. B110, 035135 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    J. M. DeStefano, E. Rosenberg, O. Peek, Y. Lee, Z. Liu, Q. Jiang, L. Ke, and J.-H. Chu, npj Quantum Materials 8, 65 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    X. Chen, X. Liu, W. Xia, X. Mi, L. Zhong, K. Yang, L. Zhang, Y. Gan, Y. Liu, G. Wang, A. Wang, Y. Chai, J. Shen, X. Yang, Y. Guo, and M. He, Phys. Rev. B107, 174510 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Kohler, Annalen der Physik424, 211 (1938)

    M. Kohler, Annalen der Physik424, 211 (1938)

    1938

  40. [48]

    J. M. Harris, Y. F. Yan, P. Matl, N. P. Ong, P. W. An- derson, T. Kimura, and K. Kitazawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1391 (1995)

    1995

  41. [49]

    P. W. Anderson, Phys. Today50, 42 (1997)

    1997

  42. [50]

    X. Li, J. Sun, P. Shahi, M. Gao, A. H. MacDonald, Y. Uwatoko, T. Xiang, J. B. Goodenough, J. Cheng, and J. Zhou, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.115, 9935 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Rößler, C

    S. Rößler, C. Koz, L. Jiao, U. K. Rößler, F. Steglich, U. Schwarz, and S. Wirth, Phys. Rev. B 92, 060505 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    Y. Wu, N. H. Jo, M. Ochi, L. Huang, D. Mou, S. L. Bud’ko, P. C. Canfield, N. Trivedi, R. Arita, and A. Kaminski, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 166602 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    J. Xu, F. Han, T.-T. Wang, L. R. Thoutam, S. E. Pate, M. Li, X. Zhang, Y.-L. Wang, R. Fotovat, U. Welp, X. Zhou, W.-K. Kwok, D. Y. Chung, M. G. Kanatzidis, and Z.-L. Xiao, Phys. Rev. X11, 041029 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.