Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Origins of the anomalous Hall conductivity in the symmetry enforced Fe3GeTe2 nodal-line ferromagnet

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

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

Pith's one-line read Fe3GeTe2's anomalous Hall effect comes from three sources, not one gapped nodal line.

desk verdict A credible correction to the single-nodal-line story for Fe3GeTe2's AHC, but the three-mechanism accounting isn't closed and the specific K-H line from Kim et al. is never isolated. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07420 v1 pith:6JVW7C72 submitted 2025-02-11 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Mikel García-Díez , Haim Beidenkopf , Iñigo Robredo , Maia G. Vergniory This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords anomalousHallconductivityFe3GeTe2nodal-lineferromagnetBerrycurvatureWeylpointsspin-orbitcouplingelectrondopingWanniertight-bindingmodel
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 sets out to correct the accepted account of the large anomalous Hall conductivity of the van der Waals ferromagnet Fe3GeTe2, which earlier work attributed to a single gapped nodal line. Using symmetry analysis and first-principles-based band structure calculations, the authors show that this nodal-line mechanism supplies only part of the response. They find that three sources together explain the full computed conductivity: nodal lines that are gapped when ferromagnetic order sets in, Weyl points in particular energy windows, and spin-orbit-coupling gaps opened between spin-up and spin-down bands. The practical stake is that shifting the chemical potential by about 0.3 eV through electron doping could increase the conductivity fourfold, from about 200 to about 800 S/cm.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the symmetry classification of the magnetic space group No. 194.270, in which the mirror operation $\{m_{001}|0,0,1/2\}$ protects nodal lines on the $k_z=0$ and $k_z=1/2$ planes, and by a Wannier-based tight-binding model built from density-functional band structure. The anomalous Hall conductivity is computed as $\sigma_{xy} = -\frac{e^2}{\hbar}\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\,\Omega_{xy}(k)$, and the Brillouin zone is then partitioned into three regions that isolate each mechanism: narrow slices around the $k_x=0,1/2$ and $k_y=0,1/2$ mirror planes (gapped paramagnetic nodal lines), energy windows around Weyl nodes, and a cube around $\Gamma$ (spin-orbit-induced gaps between spin-up and spin-down bands). The decisive check is that these three regions account for the full response, leaving no room for a dominant fourth source.

What would settle it

A full Brillouin-zone calculation of $\sigma_{xy}$ on a dense grid, directly from the density-functional wavefunctions rather than the tight-binding model, would show whether the three contributions really sum to the total. Experimentally, doping Fe3GeTe2 to raise the Fermi level by roughly 0.3 eV and measuring the Hall conductivity would test the predicted fourfold increase to about 800 S/cm.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the intrinsic anomalous Hall conductivity of Fe3GeTe2 has three distinct microscopic origins, and no single one of them dominates. In the paramagnetic phase the crystal has mirror-symmetry-protected nodal lines on the $k_x$ and $k_y$ planes; ferromagnetic order gaps these lines, concentrating Berry curvature there. Away from those planes, the band structure hosts Weyl points whose energy distribution correlates with changes in $\sigma_{xy}$ as the chemical potential moves. Finally, spin-orbit coupling opens small gaps where spin-up and spin-down bands would otherwise cross, most notably around the $\Gamma$ point, and these avoided crossings carry a large part of the low-energy signal. The sum of these three contributions reproduces the full computed anomalous Hall conductivity, which is incompatible with the earlier claim that the gapped nodal line along $K$–$H$ alone explains the effect.

Load-bearing premise

The three-source conclusion stands on the assumption that the tight-binding model preserves the full quantum-geometric contribution to the Hall signal, and that the anomalous Hall conductivity is exactly the sum of the three isolated momentum-space regions, with nothing missing and nothing double-counted; the doping prediction also assumes that adding electrons shifts the Fermi level rigidly without changing the band structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The earlier single-nodal-line explanation for the anomalous Hall conductivity of Fe3GeTe2 is incomplete; any future transport theory must include all three sources.
  • Electron doping by roughly 0.3 eV should raise the intrinsic anomalous Hall conductivity from about 200 S/cm to about 800 S/cm, a fourfold enhancement.
  • The mirror-invariant $k_z=0,1/2$ planes, where nodal lines remain symmetry protected, do not contribute to the anomalous Hall conductivity; only the ferromagnetically gapped $k_x$ and $k_y$ plane lines do.
  • Symmetry-protected nodal lines that survive spin-orbit coupling produce drum-head surface states, which are detectable in surface spectra.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the three-source decomposition is exact, doping-dependent measurements of the anomalous Hall conductivity could resolve the relative weight of each mechanism, because each source has a distinct energy window.
  • The same decomposition could be tested in other van der Waals ferromagnets with mirror-protected nodal lines, which would show whether the dominance of spin-orbit-induced gaps near $\Gamma$ is generic to this material family.
  • The rigid-band-shift assumption behind the doping prediction could be checked with angle-resolved photoemission on doped samples; a rearrangement of the bands rather than a simple shift would invalidate the fourfold enhancement.
  • The predicted drum-head state's visibility should depend on surface termination, since the Wilson-loop argument shows the surface response changes when the crystal is cut at different positions.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports DFT and Wannier-based calculations of Fe3GeTe2 in its ferromagnetic phase. The symmetry analysis identifies mirror-symmetry-protected nodal lines in the electronic structure with SOC, supports drumhead surface states, and classifies the magnetic space group. The central transport claim is that the intrinsic anomalous Hall conductivity (AHC) cannot be explained by the single gapped nodal line invoked by Kim et al., and that three separate mechanisms - nodal lines gapped by ferromagnetic order, Weyl points, and SOC-induced gaps between spin-up and spin-down bands - together explain the full AHC. The paper further predicts that electron doping shifting the chemical potential by about 0.3 eV could increase the AHC from roughly 200 to 800 S/cm.

Significance. If the three-mechanism decomposition can be made quantitative, this is a valuable correction to the literature because it directly challenges a commonly cited explanation of the large intrinsic AHC in Fe3GeTe2. The negative result in Fig. 5 - that the mirror-plane nodal-line slices contribute far less than the total AHC - is a concrete computational falsification and is the strongest part of the paper. The symmetry analysis and Wilson-loop characterization of nodal lines, including the drumhead state in Fig. 4, are competently executed and of independent interest. However, the positive claim of a complete explanation is currently supported only by qualitative comparisons; no summed curve is shown. The doping prediction, if confirmed experimentally, would be a falsifiable test, but it rests on a rigid-band assumption that is not justified. I therefore regard the central quantitative claim as not yet closed.

major comments (5)
  1. [V A and Fig. 5] The slice calculation is performed on the momentum planes kx=0,1/2 and ky=0,1/2, but the nodal line invoked by Ref. [23] lies along P=(1/3,1/3,w) between K and H. That line is therefore not contained in those slices, so Fig. 5 does not directly falsify the K-H gapped-nodal-line mechanism. The K-H line is mentioned in Sec. V C as an example of an SOC-induced gap, but the Γ-centered cube in Fig. 8 is not stated to contain the K or H points, and the manuscript nowhere quantifies the contribution of the K-H line. Please isolate the AHC from a momentum region enclosing the K-H line, or explicitly show that the mirror-plane slices and the Γ cube together capture its contribution.
  2. [V A-C and Conclusion] The three claimed contributions are never summed and compared with the full-BZ σxy(μ). Fig. 5 shows the two plane sets contribute far less than the total; Fig. 8 shows the Γ cube contributes; Sec. V B provides only a correlation between the energy distribution of Weyl nodes and features in the AHC. The Introduction states that 'three mechanisms are required to explain the full response', but no partition of the BZ into disjoint regions, no residual after summing, and no analysis of double counting or overlap is provided. Please add an explicit summed contribution curve and a residual plot, and state the criteria used to define the momentum and energy regions.
  3. [V B] The Weyl-node contribution is asserted from the energy histogram in Fig. 6, not from a calculation of the Berry-curvature flux associated with the Weyl orbits. Because the text correctly notes that Weyl nodes can enhance or suppress the AHC depending on the band structure, a count correlation is not a quantitative estimate. Please compute the AHC contribution from momentum or energy windows containing the identified Weyl points, or otherwise integrate the chirality-weighted curvature.
  4. [V A and Conclusion] The prediction of a fourfold AHC enhancement upon electron doping assumes a rigid shift of the chemical potential with no change in the band structure or magnetism. No doping calculation, supercell, or justification for this assumption is provided. Please either present this as an illustrative rigid-band estimate or support it with explicit doping calculations.
  5. [V A/C, Figs. 5 and 8] The 'narrow momentum slices' and the 'cube enclosing the Γ point' are never defined quantitatively. The reported contributions are therefore functions of unspecified free parameters, and the completeness claim cannot be assessed or reproduced. Please state the slice widths and cube dimensions and show that the conclusions are robust to their variation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 5] The legend labels 'one plane' and 'both planes' are ambiguous; the caption should clarify that the purple curve is the sum of the two symmetry-related plane contributions and not a factor-of-two artifact.
  2. [V B and Fig. 6] The text in Sec. V B says the Weyl-node window extends 1 eV above and below the Fermi level, while the Fig. 6 caption says 1.5 eV; please make the numbers consistent.
  3. [II] There are small typographical errors: 'Perdew-Burke-Ernzenhof' should be 'Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof', and Ref. [26] has 'Physical Review B50' missing a space.
  4. [Figs. 5 and 8] The plots show 'Absolute AHC', which discards the sign of σxy; since contributions of opposite sign can cancel, the manuscript should state whether the signed conductivity is used and why the absolute value is appropriate for the decomposition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central AHC counter-claim is a direct numerical comparison, not a reduction to inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the bulk AHC cannot arise from gapped nodal lines—is supported by a direct computational comparison between the full-BZ AHC and the AHC from narrow momentum slices around mirror-invariant planes (Fig. 5), an estimate from Weyl-node energy distributions (Fig. 6), and a Gamma-centered cube estimate of SOC-induced gaps (Fig. 8). These are independent numerical results from a DFT-plus-Wannier model, not quantities defined in terms of the conclusion. The self-citations are to tool papers (IrRep, Bilbao, WannierBerri) and to earlier symmetry-analysis work; none is load-bearing in the sense of importing an unverified uniqueness theorem or smuggling in an ansatz. The doping enhancement is read off the same computed AHC-vs-chemical-potential curve, but it is presented as a model-based suggestion, not as an independent confirmation, so it is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The skeptic's concern—that the disputed K-H nodal line of Ref. [23] is not isolated in the slice calculation and may or may not fall inside the Gamma cube—is a potentially serious correctness/completeness issue about whether the refutation addresses the exact line invoked previously, but it is not circularity: no equation reduces to its own input. Under the hard rules requiring an exhibited reduction, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes a symmetry classification and AHC attribution, so its load-bearing assumptions are the DFT approximation, the fidelity of the Wannier interpolation, the additivity of the momentum-space decomposition, and the correctness of the cited SSG/MSG classifications. Free parameters are the hand-chosen computational windows; the most consequential are the unspecified momentum-slice and cube boundaries used to attribute AHC, since the three-mechanism claim cannot be reproduced without them.

free parameters (5)
  • Wannier frozen energy window = 3 eV centered at the Fermi level
    The tight-binding model and all AHC results depend on this projection window (Sec. II); its width is chosen by hand, and no sensitivity analysis is given.
  • Weyl-node search energy windows = +/-0.1 eV and +/-1.5 eV around the Fermi level
    The correlation between Weyl nodes and AHC (Sec. V B, Fig. 6) depends on these hand-chosen windows.
  • Chemical potential shift for the doping proposal = 0.3 eV
    The claimed fourfold AHC enhancement is read from the computed AHC curve at this shift (Sec. V A, Fig. 5); it is chosen because the curve peaks there and is not a self-consistent doped calculation.
  • Momentum-slice width for kx,ky plane AHC attribution = not specified
    The gapped-nodal-line contribution (Sec. V A) is computed in 'narrow momentum slices' whose width is not given, so the attribution is not reproducible.
  • Gamma-cube size for SOC-gap AHC attribution = not specified
    The SOC-induced gap contribution (Sec. V C, Fig. 8) is computed in a cube around Gamma whose extent is not specified, leaving the attribution and possible overlap with the plane slices undefined.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PBE-GGA with DFT-D3 accurately describes the electronic structure and magnetic moments of Fe3GeTe2
    All band structures, nodal lines, and AHC values are derived from this DFT approximation (Sec. II); PBE is known to underestimate gaps, and no functional comparison is given.
  • domain assumption The Wannier tight-binding model faithfully reproduces the DFT bands and Berry curvature in the relevant energy window
    Nodal-line searches (Sec. IV), Weyl searches (Sec. V B), and AHC integrals (Sec. V) are all performed on the Wannier TB model.
  • ad hoc to paper The AHC can be partitioned additively into the three named momentum-space sources with no omission or double counting
    The three-mechanism claim in Sec. V requires that the plane slices, Weyl windows, and Gamma cube exhaust the Berry-curvature sources; the paper never demonstrates the sum equals the total.
  • domain assumption The SSG L194.1.1 and MSG No. 194.270 classifications correctly describe the symmetry of the calculated band structure
    The nodal-line protection arguments (Secs. III and IV) rest on these classifications taken from Refs. [21], [30], and [35].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Origins of the anomalous Hall conductivity in the symmetry enforced Fe3GeTe2 nodal-line ferromagnet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6JVW7C72

@misc{pith2026250207420,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Origins of the anomalous Hall conductivity in the symmetry enforced Fe3GeTe2 nodal-line ferromagnet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6JVW7C72}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07420}
}
abstract

Fe$_3$GeTe$_2$ has gained attention in the condensed matter community for its potential to be exfoliated into thin films with ferromagnetic (FM) order, thanks to its van der Waals layered structure and significant intrinsic anomalous Hall conductivity (AHC). In this work, we analyze the electronic structure and show that, contrary to prior claims, the bulk of the AHC cannot arise from gapped nodal lines. By studying the material's symmetry properties, both with and without spin-orbit coupling (SOC) and across paramagnetic and FM phases, we find that Fe$_3$GeTe$_2$ hosts mirror-symmetry-protected nodal lines, which support surface drumhead states. Additionally, we identify three key sources of AHC: nodal lines in the paramagnetic phase gapped by the FM order, Weyl points within specific energy ranges, and gaps between spin-up and spin-down bands caused by SOC. Finally, our calculations suggest that electron doping could increase the AHC up to four times compared to its value at the computed Fermi level.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07420 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Electronic band structure along high-symmetry paths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Nodal lines on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Sketch of the two possible positions of the hybrid Wannier function centers of the nodal lines for a slab of three cells [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Characterization of one of the nodal lines and its drum-head state. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Computed absolute AHC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Weyl points within [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. AHC from a cube enclosing the Γ point (blue), which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Symmetry-breaking-induced topology in FeSe

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-08 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    Bulk FeSe becomes a predicted strong topological insulator when C4 symmetry is broken by uniaxial strain or by the low-temperature orthorhombic distortion.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [23]

    K. Kim, J. Seo, E. Lee, K.-T. Ko, B. S. Kim, B. G. Jang, J. M. Ok, J. Lee, Y. J. Jo, W. Kang, J. H. Shim, C. Kim, H. W. Yeom, B. Il Min, B.-J. Yang, and J. S. Kim, Nature Materials 17, 794 (2018), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    Deiseroth, K

    H.-J. Deiseroth, K. Aleksandrov, C. Reiner, L. Kienle, and R. K. Kremer, ChemInform 37 (2006), 10.1002/chin.200626003

    work page doi:10.1002/chin.200626003 2006

  3. [2]

    Zhang, H

    Y. Zhang, H. Xu, C. Yi, X. Wang, Y. Huang, J. Tang, J. Jiang, C. He, M. Zhao, T. Ma, J. Dong, C. Guo, J. Feng, C. Wan, H. Wei, H. Du, Y. Shi, G. Yu, G. Zhang, and X. Han, Applied Physics Letters 118, 262406 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    S. Liu, X. Yuan, Y. Zou, Y. Sheng, C. Huang, E. Zhang, J. Ling, Y. Liu, W. Wang, C. Zhang, J. Zou, K. Wang, and F. Xiu, npj 2D Materials and Applications 1, 1 (2017), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    work page 2017

  5. [6]

    P. R. Sharma, T. W. Kim, and H. Noh, Materials Chem- istry and Physics 302, 127738 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [7]

    J. Xu, W. A. Phelan, and C.-L. Chien, Nano Letters 19, 8250 (2019), publisher: American Chemical Society

    work page 2019

  7. [8]

    V. D. Esin, A. A. Avakyants, A. V. Timonina, N. N. Kolesnikov, and E. V. Deviatov, Chinese Physics Letters 39, 097303 (2022), publisher: Chinese Physical Society and IOP Publishing Ltd

    work page 2022

  8. [9]

    B. Chen, J. Yang, H. Wang, M. Imai, H. Ohta, C. Mi- chioka, K. Yoshimura, and M. Fang, Journal of the Phys- ical Society of Japan 82, 124711 (2013), publisher: The Physical Society of Japan

    work page 2013

Show all 42 references
  1. [10]

    Z. Fei, B. Huang, P. Malinowski, W. Wang, T. Song, J. Sanchez, W. Yao, D. Xiao, X. Zhu, A. F. May, W. Wu, D. H. Cobden, J.-H. Chu, and X. Xu, Nature Materials 17, 778 (2018), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2018

  2. [11]

    C. Tan, J. Lee, S.-G. Jung, T. Park, S. Albarakati, J. Par- tridge, M. R. Field, D. G. McCulloch, L. Wang, and C. Lee, Nature Communications 9, 1554 (2018)

    2018

  3. [12]

    Deiseroth, K

    H.-J. Deiseroth, K. Aleksandrov, C. Reiner, L. Kienle, and R. K. Kremer, European Journal of Inorganic Chem- istry 2006, 1561 (2006)

    2006

  4. [13]

    H. Wang, Y. Liu, P. Wu, W. Hou, Y. Jiang, X. Li, C. Pandey, D. Chen, Q. Yang, H. Wang, D. Wei, N. Lei, W. Kang, L. Wen, T. Nie, W. Zhao, and K. L. Wang, ACS Nano 14, 10045 (2020), publisher: American Chem- ical Society

    2020

  5. [14]

    X. Hu, Y. Zhao, X. Shen, A. V. Krasheninnikov, Z. Chen, and L. Sun, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 12, 26367 (2020), publisher: American Chemical Society

    2020

  6. [15]

    Y. Deng, Y. Yu, Y. Song, J. Zhang, N. Z. Wang, Z. Sun, Y. Yi, Y. Z. Wu, S. Wu, J. Zhu, J. Wang, X. H. Chen, and Y. Zhang, Nature 563, 94 (2018), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2018

  7. [16]

    Zhang, H

    Y. Zhang, H. Lu, X. Zhu, S. Tan, W. Feng, Q. Liu, W. Zhang, Q. Chen, Y. Liu, X. Luo, D. Xie, L. Luo, Z. Zhang, and X. Lai, Science Advances 4, eaao6791 (2018), publisher: American Association for the Ad- vancement of Science

    2018

  8. [17]

    B. Ding, Z. Li, G. Xu, H. Li, Z. Hou, E. Liu, X. Xi, F. Xu, Y. Yao, and W. Wang, Nano Lett. 20, 868 (2020)

    2020

  9. [18]

    Ruan, S.-K

    J. Ruan, S.-K. Jian, H. Yao, H. Zhang, S.-C. Zhang, and D. Xing, Nature Communications 7, 11136 (2016), pub- lisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2016

  10. [19]

    S. S. Tsirkin, I. Souza, and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B 96, 045102 (2017)

    2017

  11. [20]

    Hirayama, R

    M. Hirayama, R. Okugawa, T. Miyake, and S. Mu- rakami, Nature Communications 8, 14022 (2017), pub- lisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2017

  12. [21]

    Z. Xiao, J. Zhao, Y. Li, R. Shindou, and Z.-D. Song, Phys. Rev. X 14, 031037 (2024)

    2024

  13. [22]

    A. A. Zyuzin, S. Wu, and A. A. Burkov, Physical Re- view B 85, 165110 (2012), publisher: American Physical Society

    2012

  14. [24]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Physical Review B 54, 11169 (1996), publisher: American Physical Society

    1996

  15. [25]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Physical Review B 47, 558 (1993), publisher: American Physical Society

    1993

  16. [26]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Physical Review B50, 17953 (1994), pub- lisher: American Physical Society

    1994

  17. [27]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Physical Re- view Letters 77, 3865 (1996), publisher: American Phys- ical Society

    1996

  18. [28]

    Grimme, S

    S. Grimme, S. Ehrlich, and L. Goerigk, Journal of Com- putational Chemistry 32, 1456 (2011)

    2011

  19. [29]

    Iraola, J

    M. Iraola, J. L. Ma˜ nes, B. Bradlyn, M. K. Horton, T. Ne- upert, M. G. Vergniory, and S. S. Tsirkin, Computer Physics Communications 272, 108226 (2022)

    2022

  20. [30]

    Elcoro, B

    L. Elcoro, B. Bradlyn, Z. Wang, M. G. Vergniory, J. Cano, C. Felser, B. A. Bernevig, D. Orobengoa, G. d. l. Flor, and M. I. Aroyo, Journal of Applied Crystallogra- phy 50, 1457 (2017), publisher: International Union of Crystallography

    2017

  21. [31]

    Elcoro, B

    L. Elcoro, B. J. Wieder, Z. Song, Y. Xu, B. Bradlyn, and B. A. Bernevig, Nature Communications 12, 5965 10 (2021), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2021

  22. [32]

    A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, G. Pizzi, Y.-S. Lee, I. Souza, D. Vanderbilt, and N. Marzari, Computer Physics Com- munications 185, 2309 (2014)

    2014

  23. [33]

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

    2018

  24. [34]

    S. S. Tsirkin, npj Computational Materials 7, 1 (2021), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2021

  25. [35]

    B. J. Campbell, H. T. Stokes, J. M. Perez-Mato, and J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Carvajal, Acta Crystallographica Section A 78, 99 (2022)

    2022

  26. [36]

    Robredo, N

    I. Robredo, N. B. M. Schr¨ oter, A. Reyes-Serrato, A. Bergara, F. de Juan, L. M. Schoop, and M. G. Vergniory, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 55, 304004 (2022)

    2022

  27. [37]

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

    2016

  28. [38]

    Chan, C.-K

    Y.-H. Chan, C.-K. Chiu, M. Y. Chou, and A. P. Schnyder, Physical Review B 93, 205132 (2016), arXiv:1510.02759 [cond-mat]

    2016 arXiv

  29. [39]

    W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1698 (1979)

    1979

  30. [40]

    M. P. L. Sancho, J. M. L. Sancho, J. M. L. Sancho, and J. Rubio, Journal of Physics F: Metal Physics 15, 851 (1985)

    1985

  31. [41]

    A. A. Burkov, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 27, 113201 (2015), publisher: IOP Publishing

    2015

  32. [42]

    Vanderbilt, Berry Phases in Electronic Structure Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2018)

    D. Vanderbilt, Berry Phases in Electronic Structure Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2018)

    2018

  33. [43]

    H. B. Nielsen and M. Ninomiya, Nuclear Physics B 185, 20 (1981)

    1981

  34. [44]

    D. F. Liu, E. K. Liu, Q. N. Xu, J. L. Shen, Y. W. Li, D. Pei, A. J. Liang, P. Dudin, T. K. Kim, C. Cacho, Y. F. Xu, Y. Sun, L. X. Yang, Z. K. Liu, C. Felser, S. S. P. Parkin, and Y. L. Chen, npj Quantum Materials 7, 1 (2022), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.