Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

AI-predicted PT-symmetric magnets

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An AI-plus-DFT pipeline identifies 23 candidate PT-symmetric antiferromagnets whose symmetry-forced band asymmetry enables magnetopiezoelectric, nonreciprocal, and spin-orbit-free spin Hall responses.

desk verdict A genuinely useful candidate shortlist undermined by an internal inconsistency in the headline stability claim and a DFT protocol too light for several rare-earth entries. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18620 v1 pith:YBUSXCNU submitted 2025-05-24 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Hao Wu , Daniel F. Agterberg This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords PT-symmetricmagnetsAFM1antiferromagnetsodd-paritybanddispersiongraphneuralnetworkscreeningdensityfunctionaltheorymagnetopiezoelectriceffectnonlinearspinHallmaterialsdiscovery
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 a graph neural network trained on known examples, followed by density functional theory energy comparisons, can predict new parity-time-reversal-symmetric odd-parity antiferromagnets (AFM1 materials), and delivers a list of 23 candidates. These magnets break space inversion and time reversal separately while preserving their product PT, which forces an odd-parity term $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{odd}}(\mathbf{k})$ into the band dispersion and makes the bands asymmetric between $\mathbf{k}$ and $-\mathbf{k}$. That asymmetry is the engine behind the magnetopiezoelectric effect, nonreciprocal conductivity, photocurrent generation, and a nonlinear spin Hall effect that needs no spin-orbit coupling. Of the 23 candidates, three are already verified by neutron diffraction, ten are synthesized compounds whose magnetic order remains unknown, and ten are unsynthesized predictions — together adding twenty new or previously uncharacterized entries to the known family of 123 such materials. If the predictions hold, experimentalists have a concrete target list of compounds in which to hunt for these effects.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the AFM1 configuration itself: a parity-time-reversal-symmetric odd-parity antiferromagnet in which the nonmagnetic crystal's inversion centers sit between, rather than on, the magnetic atoms, so that inversion P and time reversal T are each broken while their product PT is preserved. Its physical consequence is the odd-parity energy term $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{odd}}(\mathbf{k})$, which the paper derives for a two-sublattice tight-binding model of TaFeO4 as $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{odd}}(\mathbf{k}) = M_y \lambda_y \sin k_y / \sqrt{t_{x,\mathbf{k}}^2 + t_{y,\mathbf{k}}^2 + \lambda_{\mathbf{k}}^2}$, showing that the AFM1 exchange field $M_y$ acting with spin-orbit coupling tilts the dispersion into $\varepsilon(\mathbf{k}) \neq \varepsilon(-\mathbf{k})$. Carrying the discovery pipeline are a graph neural network pretrained to reconstruct crystal graphs and fine-tuned on known AFM1 examples against 21,600 negative samples, a symmetry filter that restricts candidates to centrosymmetric cells with two or four magnetic atoms not sitting on inversion centers, and spin-polarized DFT that compares one ferromagnetic and three collinear antiferromagnetic configurations against a 1 meV/atom stability threshold.

What would settle it

Neutron diffraction or resonant X-ray scattering on any of the ten synthesized but magnetically uncharacterized candidates, such as SmB4, BaMn2Sn2, or TaFeO4, showing a non-AFM1 magnetic order would remove that candidate from the list, and a DFT calculation that adds spin-orbit coupling and a Hubbard U correction and flips the AFM1 state above another configuration would reopen the whole list.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a fair reader, the paper's claim is that AI screening plus density functional theory can find new members of a rare symmetry class, and specifically that 23 materials host the AFM1 state: a parity-time-reversal-symmetric odd-parity antiferromagnetic order that breaks inversion and time reversal separately while preserving their product PT. The central output is a table listing the 23 candidates with their magnetic element, space group, conductivity type, energy difference, and synthesis status, alongside a companion table that gives each candidate's magnetic point group and the symmetry-imposed form of the odd-parity energy contribution $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{odd}}(\mathbf{k})$ that makes the bands asymmetric. The paper states that for all 23 materials the AFM1 arrangement is the most stable of the four collinear configurations tested; its own convergence section records one exception, ErGe3, whose ferromagnetic state is 0.09 meV/atom lower but which was retained because neutron diffraction had already established its AFM1 order. Of the 23, three are experimentally confirmed AFM1 materials, ten are synthesized compounds without known magnetic structure, and ten are purely computational predictions.

Load-bearing premise

The candidate list stands on the assumption that the collinear spin arrangements the code labels AFM1 match the magnetic order these materials would actually form, and that PBE-level density functional theory without spin-orbit coupling or Hubbard corrections, comparing only one ferromagnetic and three collinear antiferromagnetic states, ranks the true ground states correctly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The list gives experimentalists twenty new or previously uncharacterized targets in which to search for AFM1 order, and the ten synthesized candidates can be probed directly by neutron diffraction or muon spin rotation.
  • Because the companion table fixes the symmetry-allowed form of $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{odd}}(\mathbf{k})$ for each candidate, materials with a linear term such as $\alpha_z k_z$ are predicted to show the magnetopiezoelectric effect, nonreciprocal conductivity, and photocurrent generation, while those with cubic terms such as $\alpha k_x k_y k_z$ show these responses only at higher order.
  • Candidates whose magnetic point group meets the published symmetry criteria are predicted to exhibit a nonlinear spin Hall effect without spin-orbit coupling, making light-element compounds viable spin-current sources.
  • The screening loop is iterative: the 23 candidates can be folded back into the training set, so the same pipeline can search for further AFM1 materials or be retargeted at other symmetry-enriched magnetic orders.
  • Because breaking structural inversion turns the PT-protected degeneracy into momentum-dependent spin splitting, the predicted AFM1 materials double as candidate precursors for altermagnetism under strain or substrate engineering.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Read against the paper's own convergence table, the 1 meV/atom stability criterion is not applied as a hard rule: ErGe3 entered the final list with its ferromagnetic state 0.09 meV/atom lower, so the list mixes DFT-stable candidates with experiment-backed ones and the small energy-difference entries should be treated as borderline.
  • The DFT comparison covers only one ferromagnetic and three collinear antiferromagnetic orders; noncollinear or incommensurate states, the kind that actually win in the verified candidate NdB4, are untested competitors for the other twenty candidates, so the AFM1 label there is a plausible prediction rather than an established ground state.
  • A natural next step the paper does not take is to compute the actual response tensors for the energetically strongest candidates, such as the 18.36 meV/atom prediction FeGe3, which would rank the list by expected effect size rather than by energy stability alone.
  • The pipeline's lower-confidence band, with classification scores between 0.5 and 0.9, already yielded one additional candidate, which suggests the search is not saturated and that more DFT verification capacity would likely add further members to the AFM1 family.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an AI-assisted workflow to identify parity-time-reversal-symmetric odd-parity antiferromagnetic (AFM1) materials. It applies a graph neural network originally developed for altermagnet screening, incorporates AFM1-specific symmetry constraints during dataset preparation, screens Materials Project compounds, and then ranks candidate magnetic configurations with PBE DFT. The authors report 23 AFM1 candidates, tabulate their magnetic point groups and symmetry-imposed odd-parity dispersion terms, and present a tight-binding model for TaFeO4 that illustrates asymmetric bands and the associated magnetopiezoelectric, nonreciprocal-conductivity, and SOC-free nonlinear spin Hall responses. The paper's central claim is that for all 23 candidates the AFM1/AFM1a configuration is the most stable among the four tested magnetic configurations by at least 1 meV/atom.

Significance. If the candidate list were validated, the paper would expand the known AFM1 family from the 123 symmetry-classified materials to include new synthesized and not-yet-synthesized compounds, and the tables of magnetic point groups and odd-parity dispersion forms would be a useful resource for experimental searches. The paper gives credit to the public code base it adapts, provides Materials Project IDs, and includes convergence data in the supplementary material, which is commendable for reproducibility. The tight-binding demonstration of ε_odd(k) and its observable consequences is a clear pedagogical contribution. However, the significance is conditional: the screening model has no held-out validation, the DFT ranking omits spin-orbit coupling and Hubbard U for rare-earth magnets, and one of the 23 entries directly contradicts the central energy-stability claim. With those issues fixed or honestly qualified, the candidate list and symmetry tables would be a useful step for the field.

major comments (4)
  1. [Results, 'The 23 AFM1 candidate materials'; Table 1, row 2; Table S1; Methods, 'DFT Calculations'] The sentence 'For all 23 materials, the AFM1/AFM1a configuration was found to be the most stable magnetic state among the four magnetic configurations calculated, with a minimum energy difference of at least 1 meV/atom' is contradicted by the authors' own Table 1 and Table S1. Table 1 row 2 lists ErGe3 with ΔE = -0.09 meV/atom, and Table S1 reports FM at -0.09 meV/atom relative to the AFM1 reference. The Methods section explicitly states that FM is 0.09 meV/atom lower than AFM1 for this material and that it was retained only because neutron diffraction confirms AFM1 ordering. The Abstract repeats the same claim ('DFT calculations show that AFM1 has the lowest energy among the tested magnetic configurations in 23 candidate materials'). This is a load-bearing inconsistency, not a typo, because the paper's headline result is the 23-candidate AFM1-stability claim. Please either separate ErGe3 from the DFT-validated set, or restate the claim as covering 22 DFT-validated materials plus one experimentally confirmed AFM1 material whose computed ground state is FM, and remove the 'at least 1 meV/atom' wording for ErGe3.
  2. [Methods, 'AI-Based Screening'] The GNN screening is not independently validated. The 14 positive samples initially reserved for testing were later added to a second fine-tuning round, and the text states that 'results from this test set will not be further discussed.' This means there is no held-out test set on which model accuracy, precision, or recall is reported. Moreover, the second and third fine-tuning rounds use the previous rounds' DFT-validated candidates as positive labels, so later predictions are trained partly on earlier model output, making the screening statistics circular. The 'AI-predicted' claim in the title and abstract therefore rests on an unbenchmarked model. Please report classification metrics on a test set that was never used for training or fine-tuning, or explicitly describe the screening as exploratory rather than validated.
  3. [Discussion (limitations); Methods, 'DFT Calculations'; Table 1] The DFT energy-ranking protocol is not reliable at the claimed level for the rare-earth candidates. The Discussion concedes that SOC is omitted, and the Methods do not mention Hubbard U corrections, yet Table 1 includes several 4f systems (ErGe3, NdB4, SmB4, GdSn2, GdSnGe, PmB3, Ho4Zr3O12). ErGe3 is a direct in-family counterexample: the same PBE-no-SOC protocol predicts FM over the experimentally confirmed AFM1 state. Several tabulated ΔE values are also small (GdSn2 at 1.07 meV/atom, NaNiPO4 at 1.04 meV/atom), which is below the expected accuracy of PBE for such localized-moment systems. Please re-rank the rare-earth and near-threshold candidates with spin-orbit coupling and, where appropriate, Hubbard U, or downgrade them to 'unconfirmed candidates' rather than DFT-validated predictions.
  4. [Methods, 'DFT Calculations'; Table S1, rows 2–3] It is not clear that the code-generated AFM1/AFM1a configurations correspond to the physically relevant experimental magnetic structures. For ErGe3 the experimental order is described as lying within the ab-plane, and for NdB4 it is described as noncollinear, yet the DFT comparisons are performed on collinear AFM1/AFM1a configurations. Table S1 shows NdB4 AFM1a at -2.00 meV/atom relative to AFM1, so it is unclear whether the ΔE = 2.01 meV/atom in Table 1 refers to AFM1a and whether that state represents the experimentally verified noncollinear order. Please specify how AFM1 and AFM1a are constructed for each verified material, and for the remaining candidates state explicitly that the AFM1 label is an assumption about the magnetic structure rather than a confirmed experimental arrangement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1 and Table S1] Add a footnote to Table 1 for ErGe3 noting that the negative ΔE is an exception to the column definition and that the material is retained on the basis of experimental neutron-diffraction evidence.
  2. [Table S1, row 3 (NdB4)] Clarify whether the reported ΔE of 2.01 meV/atom is the energy difference between AFM1a and the lowest non-AFM1 configuration or between AFM1 and the lowest non-AFM1 configuration, and whether AFM1a corresponds to the noncollinear experimental magnetic structure.
  3. [Fig. S7 caption] The caption contains an unbalanced parenthesis: 'Centering-translation-related Mn pairs: (Mn2, Mn4) and Mn3, Mn5)' should read '(Mn2, Mn4) and (Mn3, Mn5)'.
  4. [Methods, 'DFT Calculations' and Table S2] The Methods text states that a kinetic energy cutoff of 100 Ry and a 10x10x10 k-point grid were used, while Table S2 lists final converged parameters ranging from 90 to 220 Ry and finer k-point grids for most materials; clarify that the Methods sentence describes the initial screening parameters and that Table S2 lists the converged parameters used for the final energy rankings.
  5. [Methods, 'AI-Based Screening' and References [2,3]] The text refers to 'Yanase et al.' while the cited references use 'Watanabe and Yanase'; use a consistent citation style for this important source.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the DFT energy ranking is an independent external check, and the GNN iterative fine-tuning uses DFT as an oracle rather than the model's own outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the DFT energy ranking of AFM1 against FM, AFM2, and AFM3 for each candidate. This ranking is an independent plane-wave DFT calculation with specified pseudopotentials, cutoffs, and k-point grids; it does not use the GNN scores as an input. The GNN is only a screening filter. Its training labels come from the experimentally confirmed AFM1 list of Watanabe and Yanase and from earlier DFT-validated candidates, so the iterative fine-tuning is a standard active-learning loop with an external oracle (DFT), not a derivation of the final result from the model's own outputs. The reserved test set is not reported, which weakens the model benchmark but does not make the DFT conclusion circular. The paper candidly states that SOC is omitted and that for ErGe3 the FM state is 0.09 meV/atom lower than AFM1 while the material is retained on experimental grounds; this is an internal inconsistency in the 'all 23' wording, not a circular reduction. No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems appear. The symmetry analysis of odd-parity terms and magnetic point groups follows directly from the magnetic point groups and is independent of the DFT energy comparison. Therefore no step equates an output to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The screening rests on the Watanabe/Yanase label set, an asserted symmetry filter for negatives, an active-learning loop that feeds its own predictions back as labels, and DFT comparisons limited to collinear states computed without SOC or Hubbard U. These are standard assumptions for this type of screen but none is independently verified here; the paper's own data contradict the 'all 23 lowest energy' statement for ErGe3.

free parameters (3)
  • GNN classification score threshold = 0.9
    Candidates with scores above 0.9 from the classifier were selected for DFT; this hand-chosen threshold determines which materials enter the costly validation stage and hence the final list.
  • AFM1 stability energy threshold = 1 meV/atom
    Materials were kept only when AFM1/AFM1a was lowest by at least 1 meV/atom; this selection criterion is violated by ErGe3 (FM lower by 0.09 meV/atom), which was retained on experimental grounds.
  • Tight-binding model parameters for Fig. 2 = alpha=1.0, beta=1.0, gamma=1.0, mu=1.5, t_x=1.0, t_y1=0.8, t_y2=0.5, lambda_x1=0.5, lambda_x2=0.3, lambda_y=1.0…
    These values are chosen by hand to draw the illustrative band dispersion in Fig. 2; the screening and DFT results do not depend on them.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption AFM1 class definition and the 123-member list from Watanabe and Yanase are correct and transferable as training labels.
    The positive training set is built from 90 of these 123 materials; errors or omissions in that list propagate into the GNN and Table 2.
  • ad hoc to paper A material with an odd number of magnetic atoms in the primitive cell cannot host AFM1, and an even-numbered material with both magnetic atoms on inversion centers is incompatible with AFM1.
    These two filters define the negative dataset and remove candidates before DFT; the paper asserts them as 'generally inconsistent' without deriving or testing the condition.
  • domain assumption The four collinear configurations FM, AFM1, AFM2, AFM3 (plus AFM1a when present) exhaust the relevant competing magnetic states for every candidate.
    DFT only compares these hand-built states; noncollinear or longer-period orders (NdB4 is noncollinear) are not systematically searched, so 'lowest energy' is limited to the tested set.
  • domain assumption PBE DFT without SOC and without Hubbard U reliably orders the energies of these 3d and 4f magnetic configurations.
    The authors acknowledge the missing SOC in the Discussion; strongly correlated rare earths and transition metals often need U or SOC to obtain correct magnetic ground states.
  • ad hoc to paper The experimental AFM1 confirmation of ErGe3 is trusted over its computed FM ground state.
    ErGe3 is kept in the final 23 even though DFT finds FM lower by 0.09 meV/atom; without this rule the abstract's count would be 22, not 23.
  • domain assumption Restricting DFT validation to centrosymmetric structures with 2 or 4 magnetic atoms is representative of the full AFM1 candidate space.
    The Methods selects 'centrosymmetric materials containing 2 or 4 magnetic atoms' to reduce cost; candidates with other magnetic-atom counts are never DFT-tested, so the screening misses them by construction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI-predicted PT-symmetric magnets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YBUSXCNU

@misc{pith2026250518620,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI-predicted PT-symmetric magnets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YBUSXCNU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18620}
}
read the original abstract

Parity-time-reversal-symmetric odd-parity antiferromagnetic (AFM1) materials are of interest for their symmetry-enabled quantum transport and optical effects. These materials host odd-parity terms in their band dispersion, leading to asymmetric energy bands and enabling responses such as the magnetopiezoelectric effect, nonreciprocal conductivity, and photocurrent generation. In addition, they may support a nonlinear spin Hall effect without spin-orbit coupling, offering an efficient route to spin current generation. We identify 23 candidate AFM1 materials by combining artificial intelligence, density functional theory (DFT), and symmetry analysis. Using a graph neural network model and incorporating AFM1-specific symmetry constraints, we screen Materials Project compounds for high-probability AFM1 candidates. DFT calculations show that AFM1 has the lowest energy among the tested magnetic configurations in 23 candidate materials. These include 3 experimentally verified AFM1 materials, 10 synthesized compounds with unknown magnetic structures, and 10 that are not yet synthesized.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18620 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of magnetic structures in an altermagnet and a PT-symmetric magnet. The yellow crosses mark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Energy dispersion 𝐸+(k) along the 𝑘 𝑦-direction with fixed 𝑘 𝑥 = 0 and 𝑘 𝑧 = 0. The blue curve represents the dispersion without the odd-parity contribution 𝜀odd (k), while the red curve includes 𝜀odd (k). The asymmetry introduced by 𝜀odd (k) is evident, leading to a shift in the energy spectrum. The parameters used are 𝛼 = 1.0, 𝛽 = 1.0, 𝛾 = 1.0, 𝜇 = 1.5, 𝑡𝑥 = 1.0, 𝑡𝑦1 = 0.8, 𝑡𝑦2 = 0.5, 𝜆𝑥1 = 0.5, 𝜆𝑥2 = 0.3, 𝜆𝑦 = 1.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the graph neural network (GNN) framework used for AFM1 material screening. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Magnetic configurations considered in this study for BaMn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Baltz, A

    V. Baltz, A. Manchon, M. Tsoi, T. Moriyama, T. Ono, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Antiferromagnetic spin- tronics, Reviews of Modern Physics90, 015005 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Watanabe and Y

    H. Watanabe and Y. Yanase, Magnetic parity violation and parity-time-reversal-symmetric magnets, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 36, 373001 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    Watanabe and Y

    H. Watanabe and Y. Yanase, Group-theoretical classification of multipole order: emergent responses and candidate materials, Physical Review B 98, 245129 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Hayami, M

    S. Hayami, M. Yatsushiro, and H. Kusunose, Nonlinear spin Hall effect in PT-symmetric collinear magnets, Physical Review B106, 024405 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Matsyshyn, Y

    O. Matsyshyn, Y. Xiong, and J. C. Song, Kramers Nonlinearity in PT Symmetric Magnets, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19444 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    P. Tang, Q. Zhou, G. Xu, and S.-C. Zhang, Dirac fermions in an antiferromagnetic semimetal, Nature Physics 12, 1100–1104 (2016). 15

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Z.-F. Gao, S. Qu, B. Zeng, Y. Liu, J.-R. Wen, H. Sun, P.-J. Guo, and Z.-Y. Lu, AI-accelerated discovery of altermagnetic materials, National Science Review 12, nwaf066 (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    A. Jain, S. P. Ong, G. Hautier, W. Chen, W. D. Richards, S. Dacek, S. Cholia, D. Gunter, D. Skinner, G. Ceder, et al., Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation, APL Materials 1 (2013), Database available at https://next- gen.materialsproject.org/

    work page 2013

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Beyond conventional ferromagnetism and antiferromagnetism: A phase with nonrelativistic spin and crystal rotation symmetry, Physical Review X12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Emerging research landscape of altermagnetism, Physical Review X 12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Yamani, Z

    Z. Yamani, Z. Tun, and D. Ryan, Neutron scattering study of the classical antiferromagnet MnF 2: a perfect hands-on neutron scattering teaching course, Canadian Journal of Physics88, 771–797 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    Watanabe and Y

    H. Watanabe and Y. Yanase, Magnetic hexadecapole order and magnetopiezoelectric metal state in Ba1−𝑥K𝑥Mn2As2, Physical Review B96, 064432 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Shiomi, H

    Y. Shiomi, H. Watanabe, H. Masuda, H. Takahashi, Y. Yanase, and S. Ishiwata, Observation of a magnetopiezoelectric effect in the antiferromagnetic metal EuMnBi 2, Physical Review Letters 122, 127207 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Shiomi, H

    Y. Shiomi, H. Masuda, H. Takahashi, and S. Lshiwata, Large Magneto-piezoelectric Effect in EuMnBi2 Single Crystal at Low Temperatures, Scientific Reports10, 7574 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Shiomi, Y

    Y. Shiomi, Y. Koike, N. Abe, H. Watanabe, and T. Arima, Enhanced magnetopiezoelectric effect at the N´eel temperature in CaMn2Bi2, Physical Review B100, 054424 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Malaman, G

    B. Malaman, G. Venturini, R. Welter, and E. Ressouche, Neutron diffraction studies of CaMn 2Ge2 and BaMn2Ge2 compounds: first examples of antiferromagnetic Mn planes in ThCr2Si2-type structure compounds, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 210, 209–212 (1994)

    1994

  9. [17]

    Schobinger-Papamantellos, G

    P. Schobinger-Papamantellos, G. Andr ´e, J. Rodr´ıguez-Carvajal, C. H. De Groot, and K. H. J. Buschow, The magnetic ordering of the novel compound ErGe3, Journal of Alloys and Compounds232, 165–168 (1996)

    1996

  10. [18]

    Metoki, H

    N. Metoki, H. Yamauchi, M. Matsuda, J. A. Fernandez-Baca, R. Watanuki, and M. Hagihala, Polarized neutron scattering study of the multiple order parameter system NdB4, Physical Review B97, 174416 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    B. Post, D. Moskowitz, and F. W. Glaser, Borides of rare earth metals, Journal of the American Chemical Society 78, 1800–1802 (1956)

    1956

  12. [20]

    D ¨orrscheidt, N

    W. D ¨orrscheidt, N. Niess, and H. Sch¨afer, Neue Verbindungen AB2X2 (A=Erdalkalimetall, B=¨Uberga- ngselement, X=Element (IV)) im ThCr 2Si2-Typ/New Compounds of the ThCr 2Si2-Structure Type, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Naturforschung B31, 890–891 (1976)

    1976

  13. [21]

    Brechtel, G

    E. Brechtel, G. Cordier, and H. Sch ¨afer, ¨Uber Oxidpnictide: Zur Kenntnis von Ba 2Mn2Sb2O und Ba2Mn2Bi2O/On oxidpnictides: preparation and crystal structure of Ba2Mn2Sb2O and Ba2Mn2Bi2O, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Naturforschung B36, 27–30 (1981)

    1981

  14. [22]

    S. L. Brock and S. M. Kauzlarich, Pnictide oxides: a unique class of compounds, Comments on Inorganic Chemistry 17, 213–238 (1995)

    1995

  15. [23]

    J. Li, C. E. Ekuma, I. Vekhter, M. Jarrell, J. Moreno, S. Stadler, A. B. Karki, and R. Jin, Physical properties of Ba2Mn2Sb2O single crystals, Physical Review B86, 195142 (2012). 16

    2012

  16. [24]

    S. L. Brock, H. Hope, and S. M. Kauzlarich, Synthesis and structure of a new layered pnictide oxide containing close Mn-Mn interactions: Ba2Mn2As2O, Inorganic Chemistry 33, 405–406 (1994)

    1994

  17. [25]

    J. L. Liang, Y. Du, Y. Y. Tang, C. Z. Liao, J. L. Meng, and H. H. Xu, Phase equilibria of the Ag–Gd–Sn ternary system at 400°C, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 481, 264–269 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    J. D. Zou, J. Liu, and M. Yan, Crystal structure and magnetic properties of GdSi 1.78, Gd(Si 0.684 Ge0.316)1.78, GdGe1.57, and GdSn 2 compounds, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 385, 77–82 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    P. H. Tobash, J. J. Meyers, G. DiFilippo, S. Bobev, F. Ronning, J. D. Thompson, and J. L. Sarrao, Structure and Properties of a New Family of Nearly Equiatomic Rare-Earth Metal-Tin-Germanides RESn1+𝑥Ge1−𝑥 (RE = Y, Gd-Tm): an Unusual Example of Site Preferences Between Elements...

    2008

  20. [28]

    Gupta, K

    S. Gupta, K. G. Suresh, and A. K. Nigam, Magnetic, magnetocaloric and magnetotransport properties of RSn 1+𝑥Ge1−𝑥 compounds (R = Gd, Tb, and Er; x = 0.1), Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 342, 61–68 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Tamura, A new polymorphic transition of FeTaO4 under high pressure, Solid State Communications 12, 597–598 (1973)

    S. Tamura, A new polymorphic transition of FeTaO4 under high pressure, Solid State Communications 12, 597–598 (1973)

    1973

  22. [30]

    Senthilkumar, K

    B. Senthilkumar, K. V. Sankar, L. Vasylechko, Y.-S. Lee, and R. K. Selvan, Synthesis and electro- chemical performances of maricite-NaMPO4 (M = Ni, Co, Mn) electrodes for hybrid supercapacitors, RSC Advances 4, 53192–53200 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    S. V. Gallego, J. M. Perez-Mato, L. Elcoro, E. S. Tasci, R. M. Hanson, K. Momma, M. I. Aroyo, and G. Madariaga, MAGNDATA: towards a database of magnetic structures. I. The commensurate case, Applied Crystallography 49, 1750–1776 (2016), Database available at https://www.cryst....

    2016

  24. [32]

    Mazin, R

    I. Mazin, R. Gonz ´alez-Hern´andez, and L. ˇSmejkal, Induced Monolayer Altermagnetism in MnP(S, Se)3 and FeSe, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.02355 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Giannozzi, O

    P. Giannozzi, O. Andreussi, T. Brumme, O. Bunau, M. B. Nardelli, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, M. Cococcioni, et al., Advanced capabilities for materials modelling with QUANTUM ESPRESSO, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 29, 465901 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Giannozzi, S

    P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococcioni, I. Dabo, et al., QUANTUM ESPRESSO: a modular and open-source software project for quantum simulations of materials, Journal of Physics: Condensed matter 21, 3955...

    2009

  27. [35]

    A. H. Larsen, J. J. Mortensen, J. Blomqvist, I. E. Castelli, R. Christensen, M. Du lak, J. Friis, M. N. Groves, B. Hammer, C. Hargus, et al., The atomic simulation environment—a Python library for working with atoms, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 29, 273002 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Prandini, A

    G. Prandini, A. Marrazzo, I. E. Castelli, N. Mounet, and N. Marzari, Precision and efficiency in solid-state pseudopotential calculations, npj Computational Materials 4, 72 (2018), Pseudopotential repository: http://materialscloud.org/sssp

    2018

  29. [37]

    Vaitkus, A

    A. Vaitkus, A. Merkys, T. Sander, M. Quir´os, P. A. Thiessen, E. E. Bolton, and S. Graˇ zulis, A workflow for deriving chemical entities from crystallographic data and its application to the Crystallography Open Database, Journal of Cheminformatics 15, 10.1186/s13321-023-00780...

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Blokhin and P

    E. Blokhin and P. Villars, The PAULING FILE project and Materials Platform for Data Science: From big data toward materials genome, inHandbook of materials modeling: methods: theory and modeling (Springer, 2020), pp. 1837–1861, Database available at https://mpds.io/. 17

    2020

  31. [39]

    Fruchart, M

    D. Fruchart, M. C. Montmory, E. F. Bertaut, and J. C. Bernier, Structures magn ´etiques de Mn2TeO6 et V2WO6. Stabilit´e des modes magn´etiques observ´es, Journal de Physique 41, 141–147 (1980)

    1980

  32. [40]

    Schobinger-Papamantellos and K

    P. Schobinger-Papamantellos and K. H. J. Buschow, Incommensurate magnetic structure of ErGe studied by neutron diffraction and magnetic measurements, Journal of the Less Common Metals111, 117–124 (1985). Acknowledgements We acknowledge the CyberInfrastructure Comprehensive, Ap...

    1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.