Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Programmable phase selection between altermagnetic and non-centrosymmetric polymorphs of MnTe on InP via molecular beam epitaxy

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The chemical termination of an InP(111) surface selects which MnTe polymorph grows under identical MBE conditions.

desk verdict Solid experimental demonstration of termination-controlled polymorph selection; the DFT rationalization is suggestive but not load-bearing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18592 v1 pith:EP52ZU3T submitted 2025-07-24 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

An-Hsi Chen , Parul R. Raghuvanshi , Jacob Cook , Michael Chilcote , Jason Lapano , Alessandro R. Mazza , Qiangsheng Lu , Sangsoo Kim
show 14 more authors
Yueh-Chun Wu T. Zac Ward Benjamin Lawrie Guang Bian James Burns Jonathan D. Poplawsky Myung-Geun Han Yimei Zhu Lucas Lindsay Hu Miao Robert G. Moore Gyula Eres Valentino R. Cooper Matthew Brahlek
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords MnTemolecularbeamepitaxysurfaceterminationpolymorphselectivityaltermagnetismzincblendeNiAsstructureInP(111)
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

Molecular beam epitaxy of MnTe on InP(111) is shown to produce either of two functional crystal phases depending on one detail of the substrate: the chemical identity of its outermost atomic layer. An In-terminated (111)A surface nucleates the hexagonal NiAs phase, which is the altermagnetic antiferromagnet with a room-temperature Néel transition, while a P-terminated (111)B surface nucleates the cubic ZnS phase, a wide-gap, non-centrosymmetric semiconductor. The paper argues, on the basis of microscopy, diffraction, spectroscopy, and density-functional interface energies, that the phase is decided at the interface and then propagates through the film. This matters because it turns polymorph selection into a programmable growth parameter, giving clean platform films for testing intrinsic altermagnetism and for exploring magnetism-charge coupling on a standard semiconductor substrate.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the substrate surface termination acting as an epitaxial template: the outermost atomic plane of InP(111), either In for the (111)A face or P for the (111)B face, sets the coordination and interfacial energy for the first MnTe layers. The argument is carried by the interface energy density $E_{\mathrm{int}} = (E - E_{\mathrm{MnTe}} - E_{\mathrm{InP}})/A$ computed with spin-polarized density-functional theory with a Hubbard $U$ on Mn $3d$ states for MnTe slabs lattice-matched to InP, by in-situ RHEED showing that the in-plane lattice parameter is set from the first layer, and by Pauling's-rule analysis placing MnTe on the tetrahedral/octahedral borderline (cation/anion radius ratio $\approx 0.414$).

What would settle it

Grow MnTe on InP(111) faces whose outermost monolayer is deliberately flipped (an In layer on the P face, or a P layer on the In face) under otherwise identical conditions: if the phase follows the intentional top layer rather than the bulk face, the termination-template claim is supported; if it does not, the claim fails. As a second test, recompute the interface energies including the mixed In/Te double-layer structure seen by STEM-EELS for the ZnS interface; losing the 5 meV/Ų preference for ZnS on P-terminated InP would remove the DFT support for interfacial stabilization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under identical growth conditions, the MnTe phase that forms on InP(111) is determined by the substrate surface termination: the In-terminated (111)A face yields phase-pure hexagonal NiAs-MnTe, and the P-terminated (111)B face yields phase-pure cubic ZnS-MnTe. The films show atomically abrupt, chemically clean interfaces with no In or P uptake, as seen by HAADF-STEM, STEM-EELS, and atom-probe tomography, and their out-of-plane and in-plane lattice parameters match the respective bulk polymorphs. First-principles calculations with a Hubbard U find that NiAs-MnTe is the bulk ground state but ZnS is close in energy, and that the computed interface energy density favors NiAs on the In-terminated interface ($-11$ meV/Ų vs $-10$ meV/Ų) and ZnS on the P-terminated interface ($-37$ meV/Ų vs $-32$ meV/Ų), matching the observed selectivity. The exact microscopic mechanism is not yet resolved, but the MnTe cation/anion radius ratio sits near the ZnS/NiAs coordination border, so subtle interfacial chemistry may tip the balance.

Load-bearing premise

The finding hinges on the assumption that the physically realized interfaces match the calculated ones: Te-terminated MnTe on In-terminated InP and Mn-terminated MnTe on P-terminated InP, even though the actual ZnS interface shows a mixed In/Te double layer and sits at an 8.3% unstrained lattice mismatch.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single InP substrate platform, with only its (111) termination changed, yields either altermagnetic NiAs-MnTe or wide-gap non-centrosymmetric ZnS-MnTe, making phase selection a growth knob rather than a lucky outcome.
  • Phase-pure NiAs-MnTe films provide a cleaner test bed for intrinsic altermagnetism than bulk crystals, which are inevitably Mn-rich or contain MnTe$_2$ intergrowths.
  • Phase-pure ZnS-MnTe films on a standard III-V substrate open a route to studying antiferromagnet/ferroelectric coupling and possible multiferroic behavior.
  • The near-complete selectivity (rare ZnS intergrowths in NiAs films, none in ZnS films) indicates the interfacial template is robust under the reported growth window.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the template picture would be to cap a P-terminated surface with one In monolayer and an In-terminated surface with one P monolayer; if the phase follows the added monolayer, surface termination alone is the active selector.
  • Because the computed ZnS-on-P advantage (5 meV/Ų) is small and the actual interface shows a mixed In/Te double layer, including that measured interface structure in the DFT could shift the energy ordering, indicating whether the selectivity is truly interfacial energetics or a kinetic nucleation effect.
  • The same termination-as-selector principle might transfer to other lattice-matched compound semiconductors and other borderline-coordination tellurides, offering a general polymorph-by-design epitaxy strategy.
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 epitaxial growth of two MnTe polymorphs on InP(111) substrates by molecular beam epitaxy, with the In-terminated (111)A surface yielding hexagonal NiAs-MnTe and the P-terminated (111)B surface yielding cubic ZnS-MnTe. The films are characterized as phase-pure and of high crystalline quality by XRD, RHEED, HAADF-STEM, EELS, XPS, and APT, and the interfaces are reported to be abrupt with minimal chemical intermixing. The authors propose that the surface termination triggers phase selection at the interface, and they support this with DFT interface-energy calculations that show a preference for NiAs on In-terminated InP and for ZnS on P-terminated InP.

Significance. If the termination-controlled phase selection is correct, the work provides a simple and integrable route to grow both the altermagnetic NiAs-MnTe and the non-centrosymmetric ZnS-MnTe on a single lattice-matched semiconductor platform, which is of substantial interest for spintronics and multiferroic applications. The experimental evidence is strong and multi-technique: XRD and RHEED establish phase purity and epitaxial quality, HAADF-STEM and EELS resolve the interfacial structure, and APT rules out chemical intermixing as a stabilization mechanism. The DFT calculation is a valuable attempt to provide a mechanism, but as presented it has limitations that prevent it from fully securing the interfacial-energetics explanation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Theoretical modeling and Figure 4] The DFT interface models do not correspond to the experimentally observed interfaces. XPS in Figure 2 shows that both substrate terminations are Te-terminated prior to growth, and STEM-EELS in Figure 4(b,d) shows that the ZnS-MnTe/InP(111)B interface consists of a mixed In/Te double layer with direct Te-P bonding, rather than the Mn-terminated MnTe on P-terminated InP used in the calculation. The computed 5 meV/Ų preference for ZnS on P-terminated InP is therefore evaluated for a geometry that is not the physical one, so the theoretical rationalization is not secured.
  2. [Eq. (1) and Figure 6] The computed interface-energy differences are very small: 1 meV/Ų for NiAs on In-terminated InP and 5 meV/Ų for ZnS on P-terminated InP. These values are within the typical numerical uncertainty of DFT slab calculations, particularly given the Hubbard U treatment of Mn 3d states and the constrained in-plane lattice. The manuscript does not report convergence tests with respect to slab thickness, k-point sampling, or U value, nor does it provide error estimates; the claim that interfacial energetics 'favor' one polymorph over the other is therefore quantitatively under-supported.
  3. [Theoretical modeling] The in-plane lattice parameters of both polymorphs are constrained to match InP, which imposes a large strain on ZnS-MnTe (approximately 8.3% mismatch relative to its unstrained lattice parameter of 6.4 Å). The strain contribution to the interface energy is not separated or discussed, and the calculation does not consider the possibility of strain relaxation at or near the interface. Without this analysis, it is unclear whether the calculated ZnS preference is a physical effect or an artifact of the imposed strain.
  4. [Discussion and Conclusion] The Discussion states that 'the exact mechanism remains unresolved,' yet the Conclusion says that the DFT calculations 'confirm' that NiAs-MnTe forms a more favorable interface on In-terminated InP and ZnS-MnTe on P-terminated surfaces. Given the interface-model mismatch and small energy differences noted above, 'confirm' overstates the level of support. The theoretical mechanism should be presented as a hypothesis consistent with, but not conclusively established by, the calculations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] The word 'stochiometric' is misspelled and should be 'stoichiometric'.
  2. [Conclusion] The phrase 'III-V ZnS structures' appears to be an error: ZnS-MnTe is a II-VI compound, not a III-V one.
  3. [Affiliation] The University of Missouri affiliation lists 'Colombia, MO'; the correct spelling is 'Columbia, MO'.
  4. [Figure 3] The schematic in Figure 3(a) and the RHEED sequence in Figure 3(b) show steps (i), (ii), and (v), but steps (iii) and (iv) are not described in the text or visible in the figure; this should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the experimental phase-selection result is self-contained, and the DFT rationalization is a post-hoc model, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

No significant circularity. The central phase-selectivity claim (InP(111)A yields NiAs-MnTe and InP(111)B yields ZnS-MnTe) is established by XRD, RHEED, HAADF-STEM, EELS, APT, and XPS, none of which are fitted to the DFT or to the conclusion. The DFT interfacial-energy calculations are a post-hoc rationalization using independently evaluated total energies via Eq. (1); the termination choices ("only Mn-termination ... with P-terminated InP (In-terminated InP)") are physical assumptions, and their possible mismatch with the STEM-EELS mixed In/Te interface is a model-validity concern, not a circular reduction. The only self-citation is the prior growth recipe (Ref. [11]), which is methodological and not load-bearing for the new result. No equation reduces to its own input, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the paper candidly states "the exact mechanism remains unresolved."

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental result is independent of any fitted parameters. The DFT modeling introduces one free parameter (Hubbard U on Mn 3d) and several domain assumptions about interface terminations and strain. No new physical entities are postulated. The paper does not ship code or raw data, so the DFT calculation details cannot be independently rerun from the manuscript alone.

free parameters (1)
  • Hubbard U for Mn 3d states = 5 eV
    DFT+U correction used in VASP; a standard choice for Mn, not fitted to the present data, but it shifts the relative total and interface energies that the phase-selection argument relies on.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption DFT with PBE+U gives interface energies accurate enough to distinguish polymorph selection at the few meV/Å2 scale.
    The central DFT claim rests on energy differences of 1 to 5 meV/Å2 (Figure 6), which are near the typical accuracy limit of such calculations; the paper does not provide error estimates.
  • domain assumption Imposing in-plane lattice matching to InP for both polymorphs is a valid representation of the epitaxial constraint.
    The calculations fix in-plane lattice parameters to InP for both NiAs and ZnS, even though unstrained ZnS-MnTe is mismatched by about 8.3% with InP; the effect of this artificial strain on the interface-energy comparison is not quantified.
  • domain assumption The XPS C1s alignment fully compensates surface charging for all samples.
    Spectra were aligned to C1s (Supplementary Figures S3 and S4); any residual differential charging could affect the small chemical shifts used to infer termination differences.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Programmable phase selection between altermagnetic and non-centrosymmetric polymorphs of MnTe on InP via molecular beam epitaxy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EP52ZU3T

@misc{pith2026250718592,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Programmable phase selection between altermagnetic and non-centrosymmetric polymorphs of MnTe on InP via molecular beam epitaxy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EP52ZU3T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18592}
}
read the original abstract

Phase selecting nearly degenerate crystalline polymorphs during epitaxial growth can be challenging yet is critical to targeting physical properties for specific applications. Here, we establish how phase selectivity of altermagnetic and non-centrosymmetric polymorphs of MnTe with high structural quality and phase purity can be programmed by subtle changes to the surface of lattice-matched InP substrates in molecular beam epitaxial (MBE) growth. Bulk altermagnetic MnTe is thermodynamically stable in the hexagonal NiAs-structure and is synthesized here on the (111)A surface (In-terminated) of InP, while the non-centrosymmetric, cubic ZnS-structure with wide band gap (> 3eV) is stabilized on the (111)B surface (P-terminated). Here we use electron microscopy, photoemission spectroscopy, and reflection high-energy electron diffraction, which together indicate that the phase selection is triggered at the interface and proceeds along the growing surface. First principles calculations suggest that interfacial termination and strain have a significant effect on the interfacial energy; stabilizing the NiAs polymorph on the In-terminated surface and the ZnS structure on the P-terminated surface. Selectively grown, high-quality films of MnTe polymorphs are key platforms that will enable our understanding of the novel properties of these materials, thereby facilitating their use in new applications ranging from spintronics to microelectronic devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18592 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. E. Schlesinger, J. Phase Equilibria 1998, 19, 591

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    L. M. Sandratskii, R. F. Egorov, A. A. Berdyshev, Phys. Status Solidi B 1981, 104, 103

    work page 1981

  3. [3]

    J. W. Allen, G. Lucovsky, J. C. Mikkelsen, Solid State Commun. 1977, 24, 367

    work page 1977

  4. [4]

    Greenwald, Acta Crystallogr

    S. Greenwald, Acta Crystallogr. 1953, 6, 396

    work page 1953

  5. [5]

    Šmejkal, J

    L. Šmejkal, J. Sinova, T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X 2022, 12, 040501

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    I. I. Mazin, Phys. Rev. B 2023, 107, L100418

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Mazin, The PRX Editors, Phys

    I. Mazin, The PRX Editors, Phys. Rev. X 2022, 12, 040002

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    J. B. C. Efrem D’Sa, P. A. Bhobe, K. R. Priolkar, A. Das, S. K. Paranjpe, R. B. Prabhu, P. R. Sarode, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2005, 285, 267

    work page 2005

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Kriegner, K

    D. Kriegner, K. Výborný, K. Olejník, H. Reichlová, V. Novák, X. Marti, J. Gazquez, V. Saidl, P. Němec, V. V. Volobuev, G. Springholz, V. Holý, T. Jungwirth, Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 11623

    2016

  2. [10]

    Watanabe, R

    R. Watanabe, R. Yoshimi, M. Shirai, T. Tanigaki, M. Kawamura, A. Tsukazaki, K. S. Takahashi, R. Arita, M. Kawasaki, Y. Tokura, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2018, 113, 181602

    2018

  3. [11]

    Chilcote, A

    M. Chilcote, A. R. Mazza, Q. Lu, I. Gray, Q. Tian, Q. Deng, D. Moseley, A.-H. Chen, J. Lapano, J. S. Gardner, G. Eres, T. Z. Ward, E. Feng, H. Cao, V. Lauter, M. A. McGuire, R. Hermann, D. Parker, M.-G. Han, A. Kayani, G. Rimal, L. Wu, T. R. Charlton, R. G. Moore, M. Brahlek, ...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Kriegner, H

    D. Kriegner, H. Reichlova, J. Grenzer, W. Schmidt, E. Ressouche, J. Godinho, T. Wagner, S. Y. Martin, A. B. Shick, V. V. Volobuev, G. Springholz, V. Holý, J. Wunderlich, T. Jungwirth, K. Výborný, Phys. Rev. B 2017, 96, 214418

    2017

  5. [13]

    N. P. Grazhdankina, D. I. Gurfel, Sov. Phys. JETP 1959, 35, 631

    1959

  6. [14]

    S. Bey, M. Zhukovskyi, T. Orlova, S. Fields, V. Lauter, H. Ambaye, A. Ievlev, S. P. Bennett, X. Liu, B. A. Assaf, 2025, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2504.12126

    2025 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Przeździecka, E

    E. Przeździecka, E. Dynowska, W. Paszkowicz, W. Dobrowolski, H. Kępa, C. F. Majkrzak, T. M. Giebultowicz, E. Janik, J. Kossut, Thin Solid Films 2008, 516, 4813

    2008

  8. [16]

    D. Jain, H. T. Yi, A. R. Mazza, K. Kisslinger, M.-G. Han, M. Brahlek, S. Oh, Phys. Rev. Mater. 2024, 8, 014203

    2024

  9. [17]

    W. Kim, I. J. Park, H. J. Kim, W. Lee, S. J. Kim, C. S. Kim, IEEE Trans. Magn. 2009, 45, 2424

    2009

  10. [18]

    R. L. Gunshor, L. A. Kolodziejski, M. Kobayashi, A. V. Nurmikko, N. Otsuka, MRS Online Proc. Libr. 1989, 151, 141

    1989

  11. [19]

    Suzuki, I

    T. Suzuki, I. Ishibe, Y. Nabetani, T. Kato, T. Matsumoto, J. Cryst. Growth 2002, 237–239, 1374

    2002

  12. [20]

    X. Zhu, K. Song, K. Tang, W. Bai, J. Bai, L. Zhu, J. Yang, Y. Zhang, R. Qi, R. Huang, X. Tang, J. Chu, J. Alloys Compd. 2017, 729, 95

    2017

  13. [21]

    S. M. Durbin, J. Han, S. O, M. Kobayashi, D. R. Menke, R. L. Gunshor, Q. Fu, N. Pelekanos, A. V. Nurmikko, D. Li, J. Gonsalves, N. Otsuka, Appl. Phys. Lett. 1989, 55, 2087

    1989

  14. [22]

    S.-H. Wei, A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1986, 56, 2391

    1986

  15. [23]

    S.-H. Wei, A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B 1987, 35, 2340

    1987

  16. [24]

    J. Han, S. M. Durbin, R. L. Gunshor, M. Kobayashi, D. R. Menke, N. Pelekanos, M. Hagerott, A. V. Nurmikko, Y. Nakamura, N. Otsuka, J. Cryst. Growth 1991, 111, 767

    1991

  17. [25]

    Q. Lian, L. Zhou, J. Zhang, H. Wu, W. Bai, J. Yang, Y. Zhang, R. Qi, R. Huang, X. Tang, J. Wang, J. Chu, ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2020, 3, 12046

    2020

  18. [26]

    Szuszkiewicz, E

    W. Szuszkiewicz, E. Dynowska, J. Z. Domagala, E. Janik, E. Łusakowska, M. Jouanne, J. F. Morhange, M. Kanehisa, K. Ortner, C. R. Becker, Phys. Status Solidi C 2004, 1, 953

    2004

  19. [27]

    K. Ando, K. Takahashi, T. Okuda, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 1992, 104–107, 993

    1992

  20. [28]

    T. M. Giebultowicz, P. Kl/osowski, N. Samarth, H. Luo, J. K. Furdyna, J. J. Rhyne, Phys. Rev. B 1993, 48, 12817

    1993

  21. [29]

    Akinaga, K

    H. Akinaga, K. Ando, T. Abe, S. Yoshida, J. Appl. Phys. 1993, 74, 746

    1993

  22. [30]

    Akinaga, K

    H. Akinaga, K. Ando, Appl. Surf. Sci. 1994, 75, 292

    1994

  23. [31]

    K. S. Wickramasinghe, C. Forrester, M. C. Tamargo, Crystals 2023, 13, 677. 14

    2023

  24. [32]

    H. Cao, J. Zhang, W. Bai, D. Zhao, R. Lin, X. Wang, J. Yang, Y. Zhang, R. Qi, R. Huang, X. Tang, J. Wang, J. Chu, Appl. Surf. Sci. 2023, 611, 155733

    2023

  25. [33]

    Y. Sun, Z. Liu, F. Machuca, P. Pianetta, W. E. Spicer, J. Appl. Phys. 2005, 97, DOI 10.1063/1.1935745

    2005 doi

  26. [34]

    Béchu, D

    S. Béchu, D. Aureau, A. Etcheberry, Surf. Interface Anal. 2023, 55, 515

    2023

  27. [35]

    Briggs, Surf

    D. Briggs, Surf. Interface Anal. 1981, 3, v

    1981

  28. [36]

    A. R. Lang, M. Zhen-Hong, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. Math. Phys. Sci. 1979, 368, 313

    1979

  29. [37]

    Sadeghi, Ida, Realization of Atomically Smooth Defect Free InGaAs/InAlAs Superlattice on InP(111) Substrate by Molecular Beam Epitaxy, University of Waterloo, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Gault, A

    B. Gault, A. Chiaramonti, O. Cojocaru-Mirédin, P. Stender, R. Dubosq, C. Freysoldt, S. K. Makineni, T. Li, M. Moody, J. M. Cairney, Nat. Rev. Methods Primer 2021, 1, 1

    2021

  31. [39]

    T. F. Kelly, M. K. Miller, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 2007, 78, 031101

    2007

  32. [40]

    K. Kubo, Y. Kato, K. Kanai, J. Ohta, H. Fujioka, M. Oshima, J. Cryst. Growth 2008, 310, 4535

    2008

  33. [41]

    T. W. Kim, H. C. Jeon, T. W. Kang, H. S. Lee, J. Y. Lee, S. Jin, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2006, 88, 021915

    2006

  34. [42]

    Kresse, J

    G. Kresse, J. Furthmüller, Phys. Rev. B 1996, 54, 11169

    1996

  35. [43]

    Kresse, J

    G. Kresse, J. Furthmüller, Comput. Mater. Sci. 1996, 6, 15

    1996

  36. [44]

    Trolier-McKinstry, R

    S. Trolier-McKinstry, R. E. Newnham, Materials Engineering Bonding, Strucutre, and Structure- Property Relationships, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    R. D. Shannon, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. A 1976, 32, 751

    1976

  38. [46]

    R. D. Shannon, C. T. Prewitt, Acta Crystallogr. B 1969, 25, 925

    1969

  39. [47]

    C. H. Skidmore, R. J. Spurling, J. Hayden, S. M. Baksa, D. Behrendt, D. Goodling, J. L. Nordlander, A. Suceava, J. Casamento, B. Akkopru-Akgun, S. Calderon, I. Dabo, V. Gopalan, K. P. Kelley, A. M. Rappe, S. Trolier-McKinstry, E. C. Dickey, J.-P. Maria, Nature 2025, 637, 574. ...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.