Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Colossal Terahertz Magnetoresistance from Magnetic Polarons in EuZn$_2$P$_2$

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that magnetic polarons dominate terahertz conductivity in EuZn2P2, producing colossal magnetoresistance reaching ~90% at 1.5 THz in 7 T.

desk verdict First magneto-THz study of EuZn2P2 with a plausible polaron story, but the 'colossal ~90% MR' headline leans on a near-zero conductivity baseline and an extrapolated dc value rather than direct transport. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.21423 v2 pith:A76YRJKI submitted 2026-03-22 cond-mat.str-el

E. Marulanda , M. Dutra , N. M. Kawahala , E. D. Stefanato , G. G. Vasques , J. Munevar , M. A. Avila , F. G. G. Hernandez This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords magneticpolaronscolossalmagnetoresistanceterahertzspectroscopyEuZn2P2Zintlantiferromagnetopticalconductivitynon-Drudedynamicsmagnetotransport
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 in the magnetic semiconductor EuZn2P2, magnetic polarons strongly reshape the terahertz optical conductivity. The paper argues that these polarons—charge carriers dressed by locally ferromagnetic spin clouds—produce a negative magnetoresistance that grows with frequency and becomes colossal near 1.5 THz, reaching roughly 90% at 7 T, about three times the extrapolated dc value. The central observation is that the polaron relaxation time peaks at the Néel temperature and is strongly field-dependent, connecting spin correlations to sub-picosecond charge dynamics. If correct, terahertz spectroscopy becomes a sensitive probe of polaron formation, overlap, and percolation in correlated magnetic semiconductors, and the strong magnetic control of terahertz conductivity points toward magnetically tunable terahertz devices.

What carries the argument

The central object is the magnetic polaron, a charge carrier dressed by a ferromagnetically aligned spin cloud whose size and overlap depend on temperature and magnetic field. The quantitative machinery is the offset power-law parameterization sigma1(nu) = sigma_p + A(nu - nu0)^(2q), which isolates the low-energy electronic response from the phonon tail and yields the conductivity baseline sigma_p, a sub-terahertz offset frequency nu0, and an effective scattering time tau from the spectral width. This parameterization defines the zero-frequency extrapolation and the conductivity-based magnetoresistance ratio MR(nu,B) = [sigma1(nu,0) - sigma1(nu,B)]/sigma1(nu,B).

What would settle it

Measure the dc magnetoresistance of the same EuZn2P2 crystals by four-probe transport at 1.6 K and 50 K in fields up to 7 T and compare with the zero-frequency extrapolation from the terahertz fits; alternatively, re-measure the zero-field terahertz spectrum with a different crystal thickness and independent phonon/background subtraction to see whether sigma1(1.5 THz,0) remains near zero.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that magnetic polarons govern the low-energy electrodynamics of EuZn2P2 and that this polaron-driven response produces a frequency-dependent magnetoresistance that becomes colossal at terahertz frequencies. The real part of the optical conductivity shows non-Drude, offset power-law frequency dependence consistent with isolated to overlapping polarons on cooling. The effective polaron relaxation time reaches a maximum near the Néel temperature and decreases under magnetic field. The paper defines a conductivity-based terahertz magnetoresistance and finds that at 1.5 THz and 7 T it reaches about 93% at 1.6 K and 89% at 50 K, compared with about 30% and 20% for the

Load-bearing premise

The colossal 90% figure assumes that the nearly zero zero-field conductivity near 1.5 THz is a physical baseline rather than an artifact of fitting or background/phonon subtraction, and that the 'three times larger than dc' comparison relies on an extrapolated zero-frequency value rather than a directly measured dc transport value.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, terahertz magnetoresistance in EuZn2P2 can exceed 90% at 1.5 THz in a 7 T field, roughly three times the extrapolated dc value.
  • The peak in the effective polaron relaxation time near the Néel temperature indicates that magnetic correlations directly shape sub-picosecond charge dynamics.
  • Field-induced conductivity enhancement is not driven by longer relaxation times, but by an increased effective mobile fraction or spectral-weight redistribution associated with polaron alignment.
  • Polaronic correlations persist above the Néel temperature and even below the antiferromagnetic transition, consistent with ferromagnetic clusters embedded in antiferromagnetic order.
  • Magnetic polarons are established as a terahertz-scale magnetoresistance mechanism distinct from the band-gap-renormalization mechanism reported in other Eu-based compounds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: if the zero-field conductivity baseline near 1.5 THz is robust, the same offset power-law analysis should reveal comparable terahertz magnetoresistance enhancement in other Eu-based Zintl compounds where dc colossal magnetoresistance has been reported.
  • Extension: a direct four-probe dc magnetoresistance measurement on the same crystals would test whether the factor-of-three comparison is quantitative or an artifact of the extrapolated zero-frequency baseline.
  • Extension: the polaron-overlap picture suggests that chemical substitution or pressure could tune the polaron overlap, potentially shifting the colossal response to lower fields or different frequencies.
  • Extension: tracking the cone-like magnetoresistance feature across a wider frequency range could distinguish dynamic spectral-weight transfer from static band effects, a testable prediction beyond the reported data.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports magneto-terahertz time-domain spectroscopy of the Zintl antiferromagnet EuZn2P2 from 0.2–2 THz, at 1.6–150 K and fields up to 7 T. The real part of the optical conductivity σ1(ν) is modeled below the conductivity minimum with an offset power law σ1 = σp + A(ν−ν0)^{2q}. The authors extract a zero-frequency extrapolation σdc, an effective scattering time τ, and define a frequency-dependent magnetoresistance MR(ν,B) = [σ1(ν,0)−σ1(ν,B)]/σ1(ν,B). They report a large negative THz MR reaching about 90% at 1.5 THz and 7 T, which they state is roughly three times larger than the zero-frequency limit, and interpret this as evidence of magnetic-polaron dynamics with a relaxation-time maximum near TN.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are correct, this is the first report of colossal terahertz magnetoresistance in a magnetic-polaron semiconductor, and it would establish THz spectroscopy as a sensitive probe of polaron magnetotransport. The dataset—temperature-, field-, and frequency-resolved complex conductivity of a well-characterized Eu-based Zintl compound—is valuable and would be of broad interest to the correlated-electron and terahertz communities. The central novelty, however, depends on the robustness of the 90% MR value and on the comparison with an extrapolated dc baseline. The paper currently lacks the absolute conductivity values, error propagation, and independent dc transport data needed to validate those claims. The machine-readable fit parameters in the Supplementary Material are a strength, but they are not sufficient without uncertainty quantification.

major comments (4)
  1. [Results, Fig. 4(a,b) and MR definition] The MR at 1.5 THz is normalized by σ1(1.5 THz, B), while Fig. 1(b) shows that the zero-field σ1 at this frequency is 'nearly zero' at low temperatures. A small absolute field-induced increase in σ1 then produces a large percentage MR. The paper does not provide absolute values of σ1(1.5 THz) with uncertainties, nor does it report the raw field-induced change or the integral of the spectral weight. Consequently, the 90% value may be an artifact of dividing by a near-zero baseline. Please report absolute σ1(ν,B) with propagated errors at 1.5 THz, show that the field-induced change is significant relative to noise and phonon-tail/systematic uncertainties, and consider presenting unnormalized Δσ1 as well.
  2. [Eq. (1), Fig. 4(d)] The zero-frequency MR is not measured by dc transport but is obtained by extrapolating the same fitted form σ1 = σp + A(ν−ν0)^{2q} to ν=0. The 'roughly three times larger than the zero-frequency limit' claim therefore compares two quantities that both derive from the same fit, making the factor-of-three comparison circular. The authors should measure dc MR on the same crystals, or at least quantify the extrapolation uncertainty and explicitly state that the dc value is a fit extrapolation rather than an experimental zero-frequency measurement.
  3. [Eq. (1), Fig. 1(a) fit range] The function σ1(ν) = σp + A(ν−ν0)^{2q} is not real-valued for ν < ν0 when 2q is non-integer, which is the case here (q ≈ 0.7–1, so 2q ≈ 1.4–2). The fit is applied to data spanning a range that includes ν0 (0.3–0.6 THz), since νmin ≈ 1.5 THz and the fits extend to low frequencies. Unless the fitting is restricted to ν > ν0 or the function is explicitly defined with an absolute value |ν−ν0|, the extraction of σdc, τ, and the regime boundaries is mathematically ill-defined. Please specify the exact fitting domain and the real-valued form used.
  4. [Results, Fig. 1(c) and Fig. 3(c)] The 'effective scattering time τ' is said to be extracted from the fitted spectra, but no formula connecting the fit parameters (σp, A, q, ν0) to τ is provided. Since τ is a central quantity used to support the polaron-relaxation interpretation, the definition and extraction procedure must be explicit. Without it, the maximum near TN and the field dependence of τ cannot be evaluated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Conclusions] The statement 'roughly three times larger' is accurate only at 1.6 K (93%/30% ≈ 3.1); at 50 K the ratio is about 4.5 (89%/20%). Consider specifying the temperature or saying 'roughly three to four times'.
  2. [Fig. 4(d)] The filled symbols representing dc MR should be explicitly labeled as extrapolations from the power-law fits, not as direct dc transport measurements, to avoid misleading readers.
  3. [Supplementary Material, Samples] There are typos: 'comercial' should be 'commercial' and 'weighted' should be 'weighed'.
  4. [Supplementary Material, Fit parameters] It would be helpful to report representative uncertainties for the fit parameters and for σ1 at 1.5 THz, since the near-zero baseline argument hinges on the noise level.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the THz MR is a direct measured ratio; the zero-frequency comparison is an acknowledged extrapolation, and the polaron scenario rests on external as well as self-citations.

full rationale

The central headline result, MR ≈ 90% at 1.5 THz, is computed directly from measured σ1(ν,B) values using the standard definition MR(ν,B)=[σ1(ν,0)-σ1(ν,B)]/σ1(ν,B). The magnitude is large partly because the zero-field σ1 at 1.5 THz is near the conductivity minimum and is small, but this is a property of the measured data and the ratio definition, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper explicitly states that σ1 at 1.5 THz is 'extracted directly from the measured spectra' and that the zero-frequency value is 'obtained by extrapolating the power law to zero frequency.' The factor-of-three comparison uses this extrapolated dc value, but the Discussion acknowledges that this inferred value differs from the large dc CMR measured in transport experiments, so the comparison is an internal model-dependent statement rather than a hidden fit-to-fit identity. The polaron interpretation is supported by external prior work (e.g., refs. 15 and 16) in addition to overlapping-author refs. 13 and 21; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported solely from self-citations. The offset power-law parameterization σ1=σp+A(ν−ν0)^{2q} is a phenomenological fit cited to external literature and is used to extract scales, not to define the headline MR. No equation in the paper reduces to its own inputs by construction, and no fitted parameter is presented as an independent prediction. The near-zero baseline concern is a legitimate correctness/robustness caveat, but it does not constitute circularity under the stated criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analysis rests on a four-parameter empirical fit whose zero-frequency extrapolation defines the dc conductivity and dc MR; the polaron interpretation is imported from prior work rather than derived. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • σp (power-law offset/baseline) = Per spectrum; not tabulated in text
    Fit parameter in σ1 = σp + A(ν − ν0)^{2q}; sets the conductivity at the peak and enters the dc extrapolation.
  • A (amplitude coefficient) = A < 0 for all temperatures; values in SM Figs. S2/S3
    Fit coefficient controlling the non-Drude curvature; its sign and magnitude are central to the spectral reshaping interpretation.
  • q (non-Drude exponent) = 0.7–1 at zero field; ~0.5–0.9 with field
    Fit exponent used to characterize the curvature and to define transport regimes I–III.
  • ν0 (offset frequency / conductivity peak) = 0.3–0.6 THz
    Fit frequency scale interpreted as a sub-terahertz polaron relaxation scale.
  • Ea (activation energy) = 3.5 ± 0.3 THz (~14.5 meV)
    Arrhenius fit to σ1 at 1.5 THz over 60–150 K, used to support activated behavior.
  • τ (effective scattering time) = Sub-picosecond; maximum near TN
    Extracted from the spectral width of the fitted feature; no explicit formula is given, so it inherits all assumptions of the power-law fit.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The offset power-law form σ1 = σp + A(ν − ν0)^{2q} adequately describes the isolated electronic conductivity below the ~1.5 THz minimum.
    Introduced in Results as a generalized universal dielectric response; no model selection or derivation is given, and A < 0 makes it a phenomenological downward-curved peak.
  • domain assumption The conductivity minimum near 1.5 THz and its temperature/field evolution are dominated by the electronic polaronic response, not by the Eu phonon tail or measurement artifacts.
    The 3 THz phonon lies outside the measured range, so its tail contribution is inferred from prior optical work; this assumption justifies interpreting MR at 1.5 THz as a polaron effect.
  • domain assumption Magnetic polarons exist in EuZn2P2 and their growth/overlap governs transport.
    The paper borrows this scenario from prior transport, ESR, and thermodynamic studies (Refs. 13, 15, 16, 21, 30) rather than directly measuring polaron size or spin texture.
  • standard math Standard Fresnel inversion for a plane-parallel slab yields the complex THz conductivity from transmission.
    Used in the SM to convert measured transmission to σ̃; this is a standard procedure that requires only sample geometry and phase calibration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Colossal Terahertz Magnetoresistance from Magnetic Polarons in EuZn$_2$P$_2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A76YRJKI

@misc{pith2026260321423,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Colossal Terahertz Magnetoresistance from Magnetic Polarons in EuZn$_2$P$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A76YRJKI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.21423}
}
abstract

Magnetic polarons can generate colossal magnetoresistance in magnetic semiconductors, yet their terahertz electrodynamics remain largely unexplored. Here we report magneto-terahertz spectroscopy of the Eu-based Zintl antiferromagnet EuZn$_2$P$_2$. The low-frequency conductivity shows pronounced non-Drude behavior consistent with an evolution from isolated to overlapping magnetic polarons upon cooling. The polaron relaxation time reaches a maximum near the N\'eel temperature at zero field and exhibits a strong magnetic-field dependence. This polaron-driven reshaping of the conductivity leads to a strongly frequency-dependent magnetoresistance that becomes colossal in the terahertz range, reaching about 90~\% at 1.5~THz, roughly three times larger than the zero-frequency limit value. These results demonstrate that magnetic polarons strongly govern the low-energy electrodynamics and highlight the sensitivity of terahertz spectroscopy to polaronic magnetotransport in correlated magnetic semiconductors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.21423 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (b) shows the temperature dependence of σ1 at ν = 1.5 THz, extracted directly from the measured spectra. Because this frequency lies close to the con￾ductivity minimum in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Optical conductivity at dc (circles) and the low [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    P. Rosa, Y. Xu, M. Rahn, J. Souza, S. Kushwaha, L. Veiga, A. Bombardi, S. Thomas, M. Janoschek, E. Bauer, M. Chan, Z. Wang, J. Thompson, N. Harrison, P. Pagliuso, A. Bernevig, and F. Ronning, npj Quantum Materials5, 52 (2020)

    2020

  2. [2]

    Z.-C. Wang, J. D. Rogers, X. Yao, R. Nichols, K. Atay, B. Xu, J. Franklin, I. Sochnikov, P. Ryan, D. Haskel, and F. Tafti, Advanced Materials33, 2005755 (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    X. Chen, S. Dong, and Z.-C. Wang, J. Phys. Condens. Matter37, 033001 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    S. Luo, Y. Xu, F. Du, L. Yang, Y. Chen, C. Cao, Y. Song, and H. Yuan, Phys. Rev. B108, 205140 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    F. Tang, Y. Chen, W. Yu, Y. Chen, S. Wang, W. Zhao, X. Yin, Y. Liu, X. Zhang, Z. Han, and Y. Fang, Phys. Rev. Mater.9, 064205 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    R.P.Day, K.Yamakawa, L.P.Cairns, J.Singleton, W.L. Cao, C. Wu, M. Allen, J. E. Moore, and J. G. Analytis, Phys. Rev. B111, 054406 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    Z. Zhou, Z. Wang, X. Chen, J.-Y. Lu, J. Zhang, X. Luo, G.-H. Cao, S. Dong, and Z.-C. Wang, Phys. Rev. Mater. 8, 114421 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Ronning, P

    J.C.Souza, S.M.Thomas, E.D.Bauer, J.D.Thompson, F. Ronning, P. G. Pagliuso, P. F. S. Rosa, and P. Rosa, Phys. Rev. B105, 035135 (2022)

    2022

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    M. Kopp, C. Garg, S. Krebber, K. Kliemt, C. Krellner, S. R. Balguri, M. Mahendru, F. Tafti, T. L. Breeze, N. P. Bentley, F. L. Pratt, T. J. Hicken, H. Luetkens, J. A. Krieger, S. J. Blundell, T. Lancaster, M. V. A. Criv- illero, S. Wirth, and J. Müller, npj Quantum Materials 1...

    2026 doi

  2. [10]

    Pohlit, S

    M. Pohlit, S. Rößler, Y. Ohno, H. Ohno, S. von Molnár, Z. Fisk, J. Müller, and S. Wirth, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 257201 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Ulbricht, E

    R. Ulbricht, E. Hendry, J. Shan, T. F. Heinz, and M. Bonn, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 543 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    C. C. Homes, Z.-C. Wang, K. Fruhling, and F. Tafti, Phys. Rev. B107, 045106 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Dutra, G

    M. Dutra, G. G. Vasques, P. C. Sabino, J. G. Dias, J. F. Oliveira, M. A. V. Heringer, M. Cabrera-Baez, E. B. Saitovitch, A. R. V. Benvenho, M. A. Avila, and J. Munevar, Phys. Rev. Mater.10, 016204 (2026)

    2026

  6. [14]

    Berry, V

    T. Berry, V. J. Stewart, B. Y. Redemann, C. Lygouras, N. Varnava, D. Vanderbilt, and T. M. McQueen, Phys. Rev. B106, 054420 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Krebber, M

    S. Krebber, M. Kopp, C. Garg, K. Kummer, J. Sichelschmidt, S. Schulz, G. Poelchen, M. Mende, 6 A. V. Virovets, K. Warawa, M. D. Thomson, A. V. Tarasov, D. Y. Usachov, D. V. Vyalikh, H. G. Roskos, J. Müller, C. Krellner, and K. Kliemt, Phys. Rev. B108, 045116 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    M. S. Cook, E. A. Peterson, C. S. Kengle, E. R. Kennedy, J. Sheeran, C. Girod, G. S. Freitas, S. M. Greer, P. Abba- monte, P. G. Pagliuso, J. D. Thompson, S. M. Thomas, and P. F. S. Rosa, Phys. Rev. Mater.9, 104403 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Baydin, T

    A. Baydin, T. Makihara, N. M. Peraca, and J. Kono, Front. Optoelectron.14, 110 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    M. Koch, D. M. Mittleman, J. Ornik, and E. Castro- Camus, Nat. Rev. Methods Primers3(2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    E. D. Stefanato, N. M. Kawahala, B. A. Kawata, P. H. O. Rappl, E. Abramof, and F. G. G. Hernandez, Commun. Phys.8(2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    D. N. Basov, R. D. Averitt, D. van der Marel, M. Dressel, and K. Haule, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 471 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    Dutra, E

    M. Dutra, E. Marulanda, G. G. Vasques, J. F. Oliveira, P. C. Sabino, R. B. Delgado, L. Mendonça- Ferreira, A. R. V. Benvenho, E. Baggio-Saitovitch, R. K. Machado, N. M. Kawahala, J. Munevar, M. A. Avila, and F. G. G. Hernandez, (2025), arXiv:2512.17123 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for additional fit details and parameters

  15. [23]

    Rybicki, K

    D. Rybicki, K. Komędera, J. Przewoźnik, L. Gondek, C. Kapusta, K. Podgórska, W. Tabiś, J. Żukrowski, L. M. Tran, M. Babij, Z. Bukowski, L. Havela, V. Buturlim, J. Prchal, M. Divis, P. Kral, I. Turek, I. Halevy, J. Kastil, M. Misek, U. Dutta, and D. Legut, Phys. Rev. B110, 0144...

    2024

  16. [24]

    U. Yu, J. Chatterjee, and B. I. Min, Journal of Applied Physics97, 10A903 (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    A. K. Jonscher, Nature267, 673 (1977)

    1977

  18. [26]

    S. R. Elliott, Adv. Phys.36, 135 (1987)

    1987

  19. [27]

    F. Tay, S. Chaudhary, J. He, N. M. Peraca, A. Baydin, G. A. Fiete, J. Zhou, and J. Kono, Optica10, 932 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Zhang, K

    Y. Zhang, K. Deng, X. Zhang, M. Wang, Y. Wang, C. Liu, J.-W. Mei, S. Kumar, E. F. Schwier, K. Shimada, C. Chen, and B. Shen, Phys. Rev. B101, 205126 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    J. Y. Chan, S. M. Kauzlarich, P. Klavins, R. N. Shelton, and D. J. Webb, Phys. Rev. B57, R8103 (1998)

    1998

  22. [30]

    Dawczak-Dębicki, M

    H. Dawczak-Dębicki, M. V. Ale Crivillero, M. S. Cook, S. M. Thomas, P. F. S. Rosa, J. Müller, U. K. Rößler, P. Schlottmann, and S. Wirth, Commun. Mater.5, 248 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Emin and M

    D. Emin and M. S. Hillery, Phys. Rev. B37, 4060 (1988)

    1988

  24. [32]

    A. S. Alexandrov and A. M. Bratkovsky, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter11, L531 (1999)

    1999

  25. [33]

    Hartinger, F

    C. Hartinger, F. Mayr, A. Loidl, and T. Kopp, Phys. Rev. B73, 024408 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    Rahman, M

    A. Rahman, M. U. Rehman, Y. Zhang, W. Zhao, J. Wang, Z. Chen, Z. Muhammad, and L. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B110, 064407 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    F. Tang, Y. Chen, X. Yin, W. Zhao, L. Zhang, Z. Han, R. Zheng, X. Zhang, and Y. Fang, Phys. Rev. B110, 174408 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Karki Chhetri, G

    S. Karki Chhetri, G. Acharya, D. Graf, R. Basnet, S. Rahman, M. M. Sharma, D. Upreti, M. R. U. Nabi, S. Kryvyi, J. Sakon, M. Mortazavi, B. Da, H. Churchill, and J. Hu, Phys. Rev. B111, 014431 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Balguri, M

    S. Balguri, M. B. Mahendru, E. O. G. Delgado, K. Fruh- ling, X. Yao, D. E. Graf, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, A. A. Aczel, T. J. Hicken, H. Luetkens, M. J. Graf, A. Rydh, J. Gaudet, and F. Tafti, Phys. Rev. B111, 115114 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Q. Dong, P. Yang, Z. Liu, Y. Wang, H. Wen, Z. Liu, T. Shi, Z. Tian, J. Sun, Y. Uwatoko, Q. Wu, G. Chen, B. Wang, and J. Cheng, Phys. Rev. B112, L140405 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Singh, J

    K. Singh, J. Skolimowski, G. Cuono, R. M. Sattigeri, A. Ptok, O. Pavlosiuk, T. Romanova, T. Toliński, P. Wiśniewski, C. Autieri, and D. Kaczorowski, Phys. Rev. B112, 134440 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    M. S. Cook, B. R. Ortiz, P. Park, K. Gornicka, S. Sarker, J. Yan, and M. A. McGuire, Phys. Rev. Mater.9, 124410 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Y. Wang, Z. Liu, Y. Wang, C. Li, X. Wang, K. Liao, Q. Wu, and G. Wang, Phys. Rev. B113, 024425 (2026)

    2026

  34. [42]

    Lloyd-Hughes, C

    J. Lloyd-Hughes, C. D. W. Mosley, S. P. P. Jones, M. R. Lees, A. Chen, Q. X. Jia, E.-M. Choi, and J. L. MacManus-Driscoll, Nano Letters17, 2506 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Mukhin, Y

    A.Pimenov, M.Biberacher, D.Ivannikov, A.Loidl, A.A. Mukhin, Y. G. Goncharov, and A. M. Balbashov, Physi- cal Review B73, 220407 (2006)

    2006

  36. [44]

    P. Hao, Z. Ren, B. Huang, X. Chang, Z. Xu, Y. Guo, Z. Zhong, X. Liu, and Z. Sheng, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces18, 5467 (2026)

    2026

  37. [45]

    Marulanda, F

    E. Marulanda, F. L. Costa, N. M. Kawahala, and F. G. G. Hernandez, J. Infrared Millim. Terahertz Waves 46(2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Lloyd-Hughes and T.-I

    J. Lloyd-Hughes and T.-I. Jeon, J. Infrared Millim. Ter- ahertz Waves33, 871 (2012). 7 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL SAMPLES High-purity single crystals of EuZn2P2 were synthesized by the Sn-flux method. High-purity elements, Eu (99.9%), Zn (99.999%), P (99.999%), and Sn (99.999%) fr...

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.