Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Tuning Quantum States at Chirality-Reversed Planar Interface in Weyl Semimetals using an Interstitial Layer

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that a thin interstitial layer at a chirality-reversed interface in a Weyl semimetal can independently reshape bound Fermi arcs, spin-filter transmitted electrons, and control transmission.

desk verdict A useful component-wise catalog of how interstitial potentials tune Weyl domain-wall states; the individual results hold up, but the combined-tunability claim needs proof because the boundary matrices do not commute. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05594 v1 pith:ALYQFDZ6 submitted 2025-01-09 cond-mat.mes-hall

Eklavya Thareja , Gina Pantano , Ilya Vekhter , Jacob Gayles This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords Weylsemimetalchirality-reversedplanarinterfaceFermiarcsinterstitiallayerspinfilteringspin-momentumlockingdomainwallboundaryconditions
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

Weyl semimetals conduct through pairs of linear band crossings (Weyl nodes) that carry opposite chirality, and at a planar interface where the node separation reverses such a material hosts bound Fermi-arc states. The paper asks whether inserting a thin layer with electrostatic and magnetic potentials can tune those states, and argues that it can, in three distinct ways: an electrostatic potential and one in-plane magnetic component reshape the Fermi arcs, the other in-plane magnetic component spin-filters transmitted electrons at moderate strength, and the conductance is controlled by the electrostatic plus in-plane magnetic potentials. The out-of-plane magnetic component turns out to be inert, making the ratio of in-plane to out-of-plane magnetization an on/off switch for the magnetic effects. The mechanism is the spin-momentum locking already present at the two chiral nodes, so the tuning should persist, with the roles of individual components possibly interchanged, in any Weyl material with a different spin texture.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the boundary matrix $M = \exp\bigl(-\frac{i}{t}\sum_{j=0,x,y,z} U_j \tau_x \tau_j\bigr)$ that connects the spinor wavefunction on the two sides of the interface, derived by integrating a linear Dirac-type Hamiltonian across a $\delta$-function layer potential. The Pauli structure turns each potential component into a rotation or projection in spin space: $U_0$ rotates the spinor in the interface plane, $U_y$ projects along or against the $z$-axis with strength $e^{\pm U_y/t}$, $U_z$ projects along the $y$-axis, and $U_x$ becomes an irrelevant overall phase. This matrix, together with spin-momentum locking, carries the entire argument: bound-state energies, localization lengths, transmission amplitudes, spin-resolved local density of states, and conductance are all read off from it.

What would settle it

A full tight-binding calculation with a finite-width barrier and with inter-node scattering allowed would settle the central assumption: if the transmission maxima of Fig. 3 move or the spin degree of polarization of Fig. 4(c) changes beyond the small-potential limit, the delta-function/no-inter-node-scattering approximation is the failing link. In experiment, measuring spin-polarized current across a magnetic domain wall in a two-node Weyl semimetal and checking whether the spin-filtering axis follows $U_y$ would test the same claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a magnetic interstitial layer at a chirality-reversed planar interface in a Weyl semimetal gives three independent handles on the electronic states. Starting from a two-node low-energy Hamiltonian, the paper integrates the delta-function layer potential into a boundary condition that jumps the spinor by an exponential matrix $M=\exp\bigl(-\frac{i}{t}\sum_j U_j\tau_x\tau_j\bigr)$. Reading off that matrix, an electrostatic potential $U_0$ rotates the Fermi-arc bound states and the transmission pattern in the interface plane; the in-plane component $U_y$ perpendicular to the node-split direction pulls the arcs together and, for moderate values, projects transmitted spins along the $z$-axis to filter them; the other in-plane component $U_z$ leaves the arc shape alone but pushes the states to one side of the interface and suppresses perfect transmission as $\mathrm{sech}^2(U_z/t)$; and the out-of-plane component $U_x$ is a constant phase that changes nothing. Because the spin textures of the two chiralities are mirror images, transmission maxima for the two nodes rotate in opposite directions, and a bare chirality-reversed interface transmits $2/3$ of the ballistic conductance. The paper's claim is that these behaviors follow from spin-momentum locking and chirality reversal themselves, so they are not artifacts of the specific two-node model.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the interstitial layer is thin enough to be treated as a delta-function potential and that electrons never scatter between the two Weyl nodes; if that inter-node scattering is not negligible, the predicted transmission, spin polarization, and conductance values change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bound Fermi-arc states exist at a chirality-reversed planar interface even when only one component of the spin-momentum texture is flipped, and their constant-energy contours connect the Weyl-node Fermi surfaces.
  • The electrostatic potential $U_0$ rotates the Fermi arcs and the transmission pattern by an angle $U_0/t$, producing oscillatory behavior with period $2\pi t/U_0$.
  • The in-plane magnetic potential $U_y\tau_y$ acts as a spin filter along the $z$-axis at moderate strengths and suppresses conductance at larger strengths.
  • The other in-plane magnetic component $U_z\tau_z$ suppresses perfect transmission as $\mathrm{sech}^2(U_z/t)$ and drives an asymmetric spin-resolved local density of states across the interface.
  • The out-of-plane magnetic component $U_x\tau_x$ has no effect on interface-bound or transmitted states, so rotating the magnetization to control the ratio of in-plane to out-of-plane components switches the magnetic tuning on and off.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the delta-layer approximation is dropped, a finite-width barrier with inter-node scattering allowed would still be expected to show the same qualitative Fermi-arc reshaping and spin filtering at small widths, with corrections growing as the width approaches $1/(2k_0)$; this is directly testable in a tight-binding simulation.
  • For a material with a different spin-momentum-locking axis, the same construction would predict that the spin-filtering and LDOS-asymmetry roles of $U_y$ and $U_z$ swap, so the filtered spin direction could be chosen by material choice rather than by potential alone.
  • The boundary-matrix technique could be generalized to smooth magnetic textures by letting the vector $\mathbf{U}$ vary with position; one would then expect the spin-projection axis to rotate continuously across the domain wall instead of jumping at a single plane.
  • A quantitative diagnostic of the no-inter-node-scattering regime is the predicted conductance ratio $2/3$ at zero interstitial potential; a measurement that deviates from it would signal extra nodes or inter-node coupling.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a low-energy two-node model of a Weyl semimetal with a planar interface at which the node chirality is reversed, and with a thin interstitial layer described by a δ-function potential U = (U0 τ0 + U·τ) δ(x). The authors integrate the Dirac equation to obtain a boundary condition, then analyze bound Fermi-arc states, scattering and transmission, spin-resolved LDOS, and ballistic conductance separately for each potential component U0, Ux, Uy, and Uz. The central claim is that U0 and Uy control the Fermi-arc shape, moderate Uy gives spin filtering across the interface, and U0, Uy, and Uz together control electron transmission, while the out-of-plane component Ux is inert. The abstract further asserts that the effects can mix or interchange depending on material parameters but remain tunable.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper offers a compact analytic platform for controlling interface Fermi arcs and spin-polarized transport in magnetic Weyl semimetals, which could be of interest for applied spintronics and for understanding domain-wall states. The manuscript's strengths are its self-contained boundary-condition derivation, closed-form bound-state energy and localization length, and several analytic transmission results such as |t1|^2 = sech^2(Uz/t). There is no data fitting and no hidden free parameter beyond the model's known node separation, so the predictions are falsifiable. The main weakness is that the combined-potential tunability claim goes beyond the component-wise calculations actually performed, leaving the central assertion insufficiently supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Boundary Conditions and Discussion/Conclusion, Eq. (2)] The simultaneous-potential boundary matrix M = exp[-i(U0 τx + Ux I + i Uy τz - i Uz τy)/t] is not the product of the individually computed matrices M0, Mx, My, Mz because the generators in the exponent do not commute. The text analyzes each potential separately and then concludes that 'combined with Uz τz and U0 τ0 it can control their overall transmission' and that the effects 'can mix or interchange.' That conclusion does not follow from the component-wise analysis. Since the exponent is a 2x2 matrix, the full M can be evaluated exactly, for example through Euler's formula; the authors should perform that evaluation and verify whether the claimed Fermi-arc shapes, spin-filtering ratios, and transmission probabilities survive for simultaneous non-zero potentials. This is load-bearing for the abstract's central claim.
  2. [Model, after Eq. (1)] The validity condition 'valid when potential width is ≪ 1/(2k0), and thus inter-nodal scattering can be ignored' is not the correct justification for neglecting inter-node scattering. A δ(x) potential that is uniform in z conserves physical k_z, so it does not transfer electrons between the two Weyl nodes at k_z = +k0 and k_z = -k0; the relevant property is translation invariance along z, not the layer width relative to 1/(2k0). The authors should replace this argument with the symmetry-based reasoning, or clarify the geometry if a finite-width potential with z variation is intended. The assumption itself is likely correct, but the stated reason is not.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The display of the exponential in Eq. (2) is malformed; it should read exp[-i Σ_{j=0,x,y,z} U_j τ_x τ_j / t] with explicit summation limits.
  2. [Transport, SDOP definition] The definition of SDOP_i has mismatched indices: the numerator uses τ_j while the denominator uses ψ_i; clarify that the same spin component is used throughout and that the denominator is the integrated transmitted density.
  3. [Scattering States] The word 'agress' should be 'agrees' in the sentence about the position of transmission maxima.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] In Fig. 4(b), the x-axis label Ui/t is not defined in the text; specify that each curve corresponds to a single non-zero potential component U0, Uy, or Uz, with all other potentials set to zero.
  5. [Supplementary material references] The main text repeatedly defers full wavefunctions and symmetry derivations to the supplementary material; the key steps needed to reproduce the transmission and LDOS results should be sketched in the main text, particularly for the combined-potential case if it is added.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: interface-state tunability is obtained analytically from external-knob potentials, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived, not fitted. The boundary condition in Eq. (2) is obtained by direct integration of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), and the potentials U0, Ux, Uy, Uz enter as external control parameters rather than as constants chosen to reproduce the reported Fermi-arc shapes, spin filtering, or conductance. The tight-binding model is adopted from prior literature (refs. 9 and 31), and the only self-citations (refs. 33 and 37) supply a boundary-condition method and a Fabry-Perot analogy; neither is load-bearing for the headline tunability claims. No uniqueness theorem is imported, and no known result is repackaged under new coordinates. The possible mathematical gap between the component-wise treatment of the boundary matrices and the full non-commuting simultaneous exponent is a correctness concern, not a circular reduction: the paper does not define the tunability to be true by construction. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited.

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

The central claim rests on a two-node continuum model, a delta-function interface potential, and a no-inter-node-scattering approximation. The only genuinely free parameter is the node separation k0; all other quantities are either standard constants, control potentials, or derived solution parameters. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • Weyl node separation k0 = not specified (model input)
    The two-node model is parameterized by the chiral splitting 2k0, set by magnetization magnitude. All results, including the spin-filter condition |kz|>|k0|, depend on this scale, but it is treated as a material input, not fitted to data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The system is a time-reversal-breaking Weyl semimetal with exactly two Weyl nodes at kz=±k0, and low-energy excitations are captured by expanding around these nodes (Eq. 1 and surrounding text).
    The model is 'generic' and 'simplification' per the Model section, applicable to K2Mn3(AsO4)3 and Co3Sn2S2, but not derived from any specific material Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption The interstitial layer is modeled as a delta-function potential U=(U0 tau0 + U dot tau) delta(x), valid when the physical layer width is much smaller than 1/(2k0), with inter-node scattering neglected.
    Model section. The legitimacy of this condition is questionable because a delta potential does not suppress 2k0 momentum transfer.
  • standard math The boundary condition is obtained by direct integration of the Dirac equation across the delta potential: psi(0+) = exp(-i sum Uj tau_x tau_j / t) psi(0-).
    Boundary Conditions section, Eq. (2). Standard transfer-matrix method for linear-in-momentum Hamiltonians.
  • domain assumption Scattering processes are computed per node without inter-node scattering, and the Landauer formula in the ballistic limit gives the conductance.
    Scattering States and Transport sections. No inter-node scattering is assumed explicitly; the ballistic limit neglects disorder and inelastic processes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tuning Quantum States at Chirality-Reversed Planar Interface in Weyl Semimetals using an Interstitial Layer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ALYQFDZ6

@misc{pith2026250105594,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tuning Quantum States at Chirality-Reversed Planar Interface in Weyl Semimetals using an Interstitial Layer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ALYQFDZ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05594}
}
read the original abstract

The electronic band structure of Weyl semimetals possesses pairs of linear band crossings, called Weyl nodes, characterized by opposite chirality charges associated with each node. The momentum space position of the nodes can reverse across a planar interface and these host Fermi-arc-like bound states, in addition to scattering states. We show that a magnetic interstitial layer can tune these states in three distinct ways. The electrostatic potential and one of the in-plane magnetic potential components control the shape of the bound state Fermi-arcs. For moderate values of the same in-plane magnetic potential electrons are spin-filtered across the interface, while both the in-plane magnetic components and the electrostatic potential control the transmission of electrons. The ratio of in-plane to out-of-plane magnetic components can be used to turn on or turn off the magnetic potential effects, since the latter does not affect the interface states. The tunability arises from spin-momentum locking and chirality reversal at the interface. Thus, the effects can mix or interchange depending on the specific material but the states will remain tunable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05594 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Chirality-reversed planar interface (CRPI) with in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a),(c) Constant energy cross section at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Transmission probability of electrons through the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Spin-projected LDOS in presence of magnetic potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hu, S.-Y

    J. Hu, S.-Y. Xu, N. Ni, and Z. Mao, Annual Review of Materials Research 49, 207 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    S. S. Parkin, M. Hayashi, and L. Thomas, science 320, 190 (2008)

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    D. A. Allwood, G. Xiong, C. Faulkner, D. Atkinson, D. Petit, and R. Cowburn, science 309, 1688 (2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Cavicchi, M

    L. Cavicchi, M. Peralta, ´Alvaro Moreno, M. Vergniory, P. Jarillo-Herrero, C. Felser, G. C. L. Rocca, F. H. L. Koppens, and M. Polini, Recognizing molecular chirality via twisted 2d materials (2024), arXiv:2409.05839 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Twisted bilayer graphene for enantiomeric sensing of chiral molecules

    ´Alvaro Moreno, L. Cavicchi, X. Wang, M. Peralta, M. Vergniory, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Jarillo- Herrero, C. Felser, M. Polini, and F. H. L. Koppens, Twisted bilayer graphene for enantiomeric sensing of chi- ral molecules (2024), arXiv:2409.05178 [cond-mat.mes- hall]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Reviews of modern physics 82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  7. [7]

    Qi and S.-C

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

    2011

  8. [8]

    T. O. Wehling, A. M. Black-Schaffer, and A. V. Balatsky, Advances in Physics 63, 1 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    N. P. Armitage, E. J. Mele, and A. Vishwanath, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015001 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Manna, Y

    K. Manna, Y. Sun, L. Muechler, J. K¨ ubler, and C. Felser, Nature Reviews Materials 3, 244 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    B. Q. Lv, T. Qian, and H. Ding, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025002 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    S.-Y. Xu, I. Belopolski, N. Alidoust, M. Neupane, G. Bian, C. Zhang, R. Sankar, G. Chang, Z. Yuan, C.-C. Lee, S.-M. Huang, H. Zheng, J. Ma, D. S. Sanchez, B. Wang, A. Bansil, F. Chou, P. P. Shibayev, H. Lin, S. Jia, and M. Z. Hasan, Science 349, 613 (2015), https://www.science...

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    Morali, R

    N. Morali, R. Batabyal, P. K. Nag, E. Liu, Q. Xu, Y. Sun, B. Yan, C. Felser, N. Avra- ham, and H. Beidenkopf, Science 365, 1286 (2019), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aav2334

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Vergniory, L

    M. Vergniory, L. Elcoro, C. Felser, N. Regnault, B. A. Bernevig, and Z. Wang, Nature 566, 480 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    A. P. Sakhya, C.-Y. Huang, G. Dhakal, X.-J. Gao, S. Regmi, B. Wang, W. Wen, R.-H. He, X. Yao, R. Smith, M. Sprague, S. Gao, B. Singh, H. Lin, S.-Y. Xu, F. Tafti, A. Bansil, and M. Neupane, Phys. Rev. Mater. 7, L051202 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    C. Li, J. Zhang, Y. Wang, H. Liu, Q. Guo, E. Rienks, W. Chen, F. Bertran, H. Yang, D. Phuyal, et al., Nature Communications 14, 7185 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Robredo, Y

    I. Robredo, Y. Xu, Y. Jiang, C. Felser, B. A. Bernevig, L. Elcoro, N. Regnault, and M. G. Vergniory, New mag- netic topological materials from high-throughput search (2024), arXiv:2408.16851 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Q. Li, D. E. Kharzeev, C. Zhang, Y. Huang, I. Pletikosi´ c, A. Fedorov, R. Zhong, J. Schneeloch, G. Gu, and T. Valla, Nature Physics 12, 550 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Huang, L

    X. Huang, L. Zhao, Y. Long, P. Wang, D. Chen, Z. Yang, H. Liang, M. Xue, H. Weng, Z. Fang, X. Dai, and G. Chen, Phys. Rev. X 5, 031023 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Zhang, S.-Y

    C.-L. Zhang, S.-Y. Xu, I. Belopolski, Z. Yuan, Z. Lin, B. Tong, G. Bian, N. Alidoust, C.-C. Lee, S.-M. Huang, et al., Nature communications 7, 1 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Mathur, F

    N. Mathur, F. Yuan, G. Cheng, S. Kaushik, I. Robredo, M. G. Vergniory, J. Cano, N. Yao, S. Jin, and L. M. Schoop, Nano Letters 23, 2695 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Araki, A

    Y. Araki, A. Yoshida, and K. Nomura, Phys. Rev. B 94, 115312 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Araki, A

    Y. Araki, A. Yoshida, and K. Nomura, Physical Review B 98, 045302 (2018). 6

    2018

  16. [24]

    Kobayashi, Y

    K. Kobayashi, Y. Ominato, and K. Nomura, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 87, 073707 (2018), https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.87.073707

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    Kaushik, I

    S. Kaushik, I. Robredo, N. Mathur, L. M. Schoop, S. Jin, M. G. Vergniory, and J. Cano, Transport signatures of fermi arcs at twin boundaries in weyl materials (2022), arXiv:2207.14109 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A. Y. Chaou, V. Dwivedi, and M. Breitkreiz, Physical Review B 110, 035116 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    A. Y. Chaou, V. Dwivedi, and M. Breitkreiz, Phys. Rev. B 107, L241109 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    S. Nie, T. Hashimoto, and F. B. Prinz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 176401 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    S. K. Kushwaha, Z. Wang, T. Kong, and R. J. Cava, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 30, 075701 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    D. F. Liu, A. J. Liang, E. K. Liu, Q. N. Xu, Y. W. Li, C. Chen, D. Pei, W. J. Shi, S. K. Mo, P. Dudin, T. Kim, C. Cacho, G. Li, Y. Sun, L. X. Yang, Z. K. Liu, S. S. P. Parkin, C. Felser, and Y. L. Chen, Science 365, 1282 (2019), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aav2873

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    T. M. McCormick, I. Kimchi, and N. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. B 95, 075133 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Shtanko and L

    O. Shtanko and L. Levitov, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 5908 (2018), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1722663115

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    Thareja and I

    E. Thareja and I. Vekhter, Phys. Rev. B 107, 144205 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Supplementary material

  27. [35]

    M. I. Katsnelson, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, Na- ture physics 2, 620 (2006)

    2006

  28. [36]

    A. V. Shytov, M. S. Rudner, and L. S. Levitov, Physical review letters 101, 156804 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    Thareja, I

    E. Thareja, I. Vekhter, and M. M. Asmar, Physical Re- view B 102, 125308 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    A. G. Grushin, J. W. F. Venderbos, A. Vishwanath, and R. Ilan, Phys. Rev. X 6, 041046 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    W. Song, S. Wu, C. Chen, Y. Chen, C. Huang, L. Yuan, S. Zhu, and T. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 043803 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    A generalization of our work to these photonic systems would be of interest to ap- plied physics

    Weyl heterostructures. A generalization of our work to these photonic systems would be of interest to ap- plied physics. Our work also motivates the exploration of the effects of more complex magnetic textures, such as skyrmions [41], on WSMs electronic states. This material i...

  33. [41]

    W. Song, Z. Lin, J. Ji, J. Sun, C. Chen, S. Wu, C. Huang, L. Yuan, S. Zhu, and T. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 143801 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    H. Wu, P. Sun, D. Hsieh, H. Chen, D. C. Kakarla, L. Deng, C. Chu, and H. Yang, Materials Today Physics 12, 100189 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

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