Nodeless Hybridization as Proof of Trivial Topology in Samarium Hexaboride

A. Varykhalov; E. D. L. Rienks; E. Schierle; E. Weschke; I. Cojocariu; J. S\'anchez-Barriga; Kai Chen; K. Flachbart; K. Siemensmeyer; M. Jugovac

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Nodeless Hybridization as Proof of Trivial Topology in Samarium Hexaboride

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the temperature-driven shift of the three-dimensional conduction band at the $X$ point of samarium hexaboride violates the parity-pinning condition required of a topological Kondo insulator, and therefore that…

desk verdict Strong experimental challenge to the SmB6 topological Kondo insulator consensus, but the central 'proof' leaves the chemical-potential/self-energy door open. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06449 v1 pith:OWSFCVXI submitted 2025-05-09 cond-mat.str-el

E. D. L. Rienks , P. Hlawenka , J. Sánchez-Barriga , E. Schierle , M. Jugovac , P. Perna , I. Cojocariu , Kai Chen

show 8 more authors

K. Siemensmeyer E. Weschke A. Varykhalov N. Y. Shitsevalova V. B. Filipov S. Gabáni K. Flachbart O. Rader

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.str-el

keywords samariumhexaboridetopologicalKondoinsulatorstronglycorrelatedelectronsARPEShybridizationnodeparitysurfacestatesSmvalence

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

For decades samarium hexaboride (SmB$_6$) has been the only widely accepted candidate for a topological insulator driven by strong electron correlation. This paper argues that its three-dimensional electronic structure disproves that status. In a topological Kondo insulator, hybridization between opposite-parity $d$ and $f$ states must vanish at high-symmetry points, so the conduction band at the $X$ point is pinned to its unmixed constituents regardless of hybridization strength. The authors measure a shift of roughly 10 meV in that $X$-point band as the sample cools from 50 K to 1 K, together with an opposite shift at $\Gamma$--a non-rigid band shift that the pinning condition forbids. They conclude that SmB$_6$ is either a nodeless hybridization insulator or an insulator produced by a mechanism unrelated to hybridization; either way it is not a topological Kondo insulator.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing condition is the parity-odd hybridization node. In a topological Kondo insulator, the $d$-$f$ hybridization term is odd under parity because it couples even-parity itinerant $d$ states to odd-parity localized $f$ states; being periodic in the reciprocal lattice, it must vanish at high-symmetry points. This pins the $X$-point conduction band to its unmixed position for every hybridization strength $V$, converting a topological invariant into a directly measurable rule: the $X$-point binding energy must not move with temperature. The paper tests this rule with temperature-dependent ARPES, and to close the loophole of imperfect momentum resolution it simulates the photoemission intensity for a $k_\perp$-integrated, weakly hybridized W-shaped band. That simulated plano-convex shape is not seen experimentally, so the observed shift must be a genuine motion of the dispersion at $X$.

What would settle it

Measure the temperature-dependent $X$-point conduction-band binding energy while following a non-dispersive bulk core level that tracks the chemical potential: if the observed $\sim10$ meV downward shift is fully accounted for by a chemical-potential shift, so that the dispersion at $X$ is actually pinned, the paper's central claim collapses. The converse control is a band calculation that preserves odd-parity hybridization nodes at $X$ and still reproduces the measured non-rigid shift.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the three-dimensional band structure of SmB$_6$ fails the defining test of a topological Kondo insulator. Because the hybridization that opens the gap couples opposite-parity states, the hybridization matrix element must be odd under parity and therefore vanish at high-symmetry points; at $X$ the hybrid bands remain pinned to their bare $d$- and $f$-level positions no matter how strong or weak the hybridization $V$ is. Temperature-dependent ARPES shows instead that the bulk conduction-band feature at $X$ shifts by roughly 10 meV to lower binding energy between 50 K and 1 K, while bulk-like $f$ states near $\Gamma$ move the opposite way. The authors rule out a W-shaped to U-shaped hybridization change (which would move spectral weight even with the node) by simulating $k_\perp$-integrated photoemission: the expected plano-convex contours are not observed. They conclude that SmB$_6$ is topologically trivial, either with nodeless hybridization or with a non-rigid shift unrelated to hybridization, and the same data are used to reinterpret the spin-polarized photoemission and the $\bar{\Gamma}$ surface feature as non-topological $d$-$f$ surface hybrids.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the pinning of the $X$-point conduction band to its unmixed constituents holds for the quantity ARPES actually measures--binding energy relative to the Fermi level--so that a chemical-potential shift or a temperature-induced shift of the bare $d$- and $f$-levels cannot move the $X$ feature while preserving the parity ordering and the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ invariant.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the claim holds, SmB$_6$ cannot serve as the sole experimental confirmation of a correlated topological insulator; the search must restart from candidates whose three-dimensional bands pass the pinning test.
The surface features at $\bar{X}$ and $\bar{\Gamma}$, previously cited as topological surface states, are reinterpreted as two-dimensional surface $d$-$f$ hybrids, removing the even-number-of-Dirac-cones problem at $\bar{\Gamma}$.
The spin polarization reported for the $\bar{X}$ state is reassigned to the atomic Sm $4f$ multiplet structure, so spin-resolved ARPES on this material does not demonstrate spin-momentum locking.
The measured temperature-dependent Sm valence places SmB$_6$ on the trivial side of the predicted topological phase diagram, in line with the trivial conclusion.
Theoretical calculations that unanimously predict a topological Kondo insulator for SmB$_6$ are left facing an unexplained discrepancy with the measured three-dimensional band structure.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference beyond the paper: the parity-node pinning test transfers to any other inversion-symmetric Kondo insulator candidate; if its $X$-point (or equivalent time-reversal-invariant momentum) band shifts with temperature or doping, the topological Kondo insulator assignment should be rejected no matter how convincing its surface states look.
Inference beyond the paper: if the non-rigid shift reflects a temperature-dependent chemical potential or Sm valence rather than a hybridization change, then binding-energy shifts measured by ARPES in other mixed-valent $f$-electron compounds should be referenced to a core level before being read as band-structure changes.
Inference beyond the paper: applying uniaxial strain or chemical pressure to vary hybridization at fixed temperature would give a cleaner test--if the $X$-point band follows the hybridization strength, the gap is nodeless and trivial, whereas if it stays pinned while the gap changes, the topological Kondo insulator scenario survives.
Inference beyond the paper: the strategy inverts the usual search order for correlated topological insulators--screen candidate materials with a quick three-dimensional band-structure test before investing in surface-state spin or tunneling measurements.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper argues that the temperature-dependent shift of the bulk X-point conduction band in SmB6 falsifies the topological Kondo insulator picture. The new data and the analysis are valuable, but the central 'proof' has a gap the authors don't close.

What's genuinely new: the shift at X was seen before by Min et al. and Denlinger et al., but this is the first time it's used as a systematic falsification test of the TKI nodal-pinning condition. The paper adds new spin-resolved ARPES data that make a credible case that the reported surface spin polarization is dominated by Sm 4f multiplet emission, not a topological surface state. It also reinterprets the Gamma-centered Fermi surface feature as a surface d-f hybrid rather than an umklapp copy, which is a nice move. The k⊥-integration simulation is well constructed and convincingly rules out an instrumental artifact.

The soft spot is the central inference. The argument assumes that the ARPES binding energy at X directly measures the bare d-band energy relative to a fixed reference. In a TKI, hybridization at X vanishes by parity, so the state there is the bare d-band, but its binding energy relative to EF depends on the chemical potential and on the bare d and f level positions. Neither is fixed by topology. The paper doesn't independently measure EF(T) or the bare level positions. Its own XAS data show a temperature-dependent Sm valence; even if the valence is roughly constant below 50 K, the ±0.05 systematic uncertainty leaves room for a meV-level shift. A band-dependent self-energy shift, common in Kondo systems, could move the X feature without changing the parity ordering. The observed non-rigid shift between X and Gamma rules out a simple rigid EF shift, but it doesn't eliminate the self-energy alternative. So 'directly rules out' is not supported; at best it's 'strongly suggests.'

Minor points: the ~10 meV total shift is partly extrapolated (they directly see about 5 meV); the title's 'Proof' overstates the case. These are fixable.

Overall: this is a serious experimental contribution that deserves referee time. The data are good, the question is important, and the challenge to the SmB6 TKI consensus is legitimate. The authors need to address the chemical-potential/self-energy issue or soften the claim. I'd send it to peer review, not desk reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports temperature-dependent ARPES, spin-resolved ARPES, and X-ray absorption measurements on SmB6. The central experimental observation is that the three-dimensional conduction band feature at the X point shifts by roughly 10 meV to lower binding energy upon cooling from 50 K to 1 K, while the bulk-like f-derived states at Gamma shift in the opposite direction. The authors simulate the photoemission intensity expected from a temperature-dependent hybridization gap in a topological Kondo insulator and argue that k-perp integration cannot reproduce the observed shift or line shape. From the assumption that a topological Kondo insulator must have a parity-enforced hybridization node at X that pins the conduction band dispersion regardless of hybridization strength, they conclude that the observed shift at X directly rules out SmB6 as a topological Kondo insulator. They further reinterpret the spin-polarized signal from the X surface state as originating from Sm 4f multiplets and propose that the Gamma-centered Fermi contour is a surface d-f hybrid rather than an umklapp or topological surface state.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper would overturn the widely accepted classification of SmB6 as the only known topological Kondo insulator, a result of considerable importance for the search for correlated topological materials. The paper has clear strengths: it provides careful photon-energy-dependent measurements that establish the three-dimensional nature of the X feature, quantitative simulations that rule out a simple k-perp integration artifact, and new spin-resolved data relevant to the surface-state interpretation. The temperature-dependent data and the reinterpretation of the surface states are valuable in their own right. However, the logical step from the observed X-point shift to the conclusion 'directly rules out SmB6 as a topological Kondo insulator' rests on an unstated and unmeasured assumption about the temperature dependence of the chemical potential and the bare band positions. Because that assumption is load-bearing and is not established, the paper's headline conclusion is not yet proven.

major comments (2)

[Connection Photoemission — 3-D Band Structure]
[Connection Photoemission — 3-D Band Structure; Fig. S2]

minor comments (6)

[Introduction] The sentence 'As of today it appears also experimentally established as the only representative of this material class' is in tension with the paper's own conclusion and should be reworded, for example to 'widely regarded as.'
[Fig. 2] The estimated ~10 meV shift between 50 K and 1 K is a key quantity, but the figure does not report fit uncertainties or the number of independent measurements; please add this information to the figure or caption.
[Fig. S2] The main text refers to Fig. S2 for the central k-perp integration argument without summarizing its content; a brief description of the simulation geometry and parameters should be given in the main text or directly in the supplementary material.
[Connection Photoemission — 3-D Band Structure] The sentence 'The higher binding energy valleys around X yield a plano-convex shape with the flat edge at the highest binding energy' is difficult to follow; a labeled schematic of the expected versus observed line shapes would improve clarity.
[References] Reference [20] is cited as an arXiv preprint from 2013; if a peer-reviewed version exists, please update the citation.
[Surface states] The claim that the spin polarization of a topological surface state 'must disappear with the closing of the hybridization gap' is an assertion that is not justified or referenced; adding a justification or citation would strengthen the argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the TKI pinning condition is an external theoretical benchmark, and the k⊥-broadening simulation is not fitted to the target conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing inference—that the ~10 meV temperature shift of the ARPES feature at X rules out SmB6 as a topological Kondo insulator—is tested against an externally supplied condition: 'in the scenario of the topological Kondo insulator the conduction band dispersion must be pinned at X regardless of hybridization strength V' (Connection Photoemission—3-D Band Structure). That condition is cited to prior theory (Refs 10-13,31,32), none of which is authored by the present group, so no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors. The k⊥-broadening simulation (Figs. S2 and 3) is illustrative: it uses the minimal model of Fig. 1 with weak/strong hybridization values taken from the cited literature and compares the resulting integrated line shape with the experimental dispersion; it is not fitted to the conclusion it supports. The main self-citations (Refs 23,24) concern the trivial surface-hybrid explanation and the identification of the Γ peak as bulk-like; these appear in the surface-state discussion and as supporting context, while the central 3D X-point argument does not require them. Thus the derivation chain neither defines the target conclusion into the input, nor renames a fitted parameter as a prediction. Scientific objections regarding a possible temperature-dependent chemical potential shift are correctness risks, not circularity, because the paper's benchmark is not derived from the paper's own data.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the externally supplied TKI nodal-pinning theorem (from the cited literature), on the identification of the ARPES feature as the bulk band, and on the unstated assumption that the Fermi level is fixed with temperature. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

Sm valence weighting coefficient (XAS fit) = ≈2.56 (with ±0.05 uncertainty)
The temperature-dependent Sm valence in Fig. 2(d) is obtained by fitting M5-edge XAS spectra with a weighted sum of Sm2+ and Sm3+ theoretical spectra. The paper uses this value to place SmB6 on the trivial side of the Alexandrov phase diagram, but the boundary is 2.56 and the uncertainty is comparable to the distance from the boundary.
Simulation band parameters (Vsmall, Vlarge, f-level position, bandwidths) = illustrative
The k⊥-integration simulation in Fig. S2 uses a minimal conduction band model with weak and strong hybridization to demonstrate that the plano-convex shape cannot be produced by k⊥ averaging. These parameters are chosen by hand for illustration and are not the target of any fit.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Opposite-parity hybridization must vanish at high-symmetry points in a topological Kondo insulator.
Invoked in the 'Results' section under '3-D Electronic Structure' and cited to Refs [10-13,31,32]. This is the external theoretical benchmark the paper tests.
domain assumption The ARPES feature at X is the bulk conduction band, not a surface resonance or k⊥-integration artifact.
The paper asserts the 3D nature is confirmed by photon-energy dependent measurements (Fig. S1) and rules out k⊥ broadening with a simulation (Fig. S2), but the identification remains an interpretation of photoemission spectra.
domain assumption The chemical potential does not shift with temperature in a way that would move the X feature while preserving TKI topology.
Unstated and load-bearing. The measured non-rigid shift is interpreted as a change of the band position at X relative to EF, but a temperature-dependent chemical potential or bare band renormalization could produce a shift without violating the parity ordering at TRIM.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nodeless Hybridization as Proof of Trivial Topology in Samarium Hexaboride." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OWSFCVXI

@misc{pith2026250506449,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nodeless Hybridization as Proof of Trivial Topology in Samarium Hexaboride},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OWSFCVXI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06449}
}

abstract

Calculations unanimously predict samarium hexaboride to be a topological Kondo insulator, the first topological insulator driven by strong electron correlation. As of today it appears also experimentally established as the only representative of this material class. Here, we investigate the three-dimensional band structure of SmB$_6$ and show that it is incompatible with a topological Kondo insulator which must have hybridization nodes at high-symmetry points. In addition we clarify the remaining questions concerning the nature of the surface states with new data. We address consequences for the search for correlated topological insulators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06449 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Temperature dependence of the 3-D and bulk-like features at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (left) Simulated photoemission intensity with the plano-convex shape required for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (left) Spin-polarized photoemission at 6 and 80 K. (center) The Sm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[1]

M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 3045 (2010)

2010
[2]

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

2019
[3]

Bansil, H

A. Bansil, H. Lin, and T. Das, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 021004 (2016)

2016
[4]

Zhang, T

H. Zhang, T. Pincelli, C. Jozwiak, T. Kondo, R. Ernstorfer, T. Sato, and S. Zhou, Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 2, 54 (2022)

work page 2022
[5]

Sánchez-Barriga, O

J. Sánchez-Barriga, O. J. Clark, and O. Rader, Encyclopedia of Condensed Matter Physics4, 334 (2024)

work page 2024
[6]

Dzero and V

M. Dzero and V. Galitski, J. Exp. Theor. Phys.117, 499 (2013)

work page 2013
[7]

Rachel, Rep

S. Rachel, Rep. Prog. Phys.81, 116501 (2018)

work page 2018
[8]

L. Li, K. Sun, C. Kurdak, and J. W. Allen, Nat. Rev. Phys.82, 1 (2020)

work page 2020

Show all 49 references

[9]

J. G. Checkelsky, B. A. Bernevig, P. Coleman, Q. Si, and S. Paschen, Nat. Rev. Mater.9, 509 (2024)

2024
[10]

Dzero, K

M. Dzero, K. Sun, V. Galitski, and P. Coleman, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 106408 (2010)

2010
[11]

Alexandrov, M

V. Alexandrov, M. Dzero, and P. Coleman, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 226403 (2013)

2013
[12]

Takimoto, J

T. Takimoto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.80, 123710 (2011). 14

2011
[13]

F. Lu, J. Zhao, H. Weng, Z. Fang, and X. Dai, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 096401 (2013)

2013
[14]

Wolgast, Ç

S. Wolgast, Ç. Kurdak, K. Sun, J. W. Allen, D.-J. Kim, and Z. Fisk, Phys. Rev. B88, 180405 (2013)

2013
[15]

D.-J. Kim, J. Xia, and Z. Fisk, Nat. Mater.13, 466 (2014)

2014
[16]

N. Xu, X. Shi, P. K. Biswas, C. E. Matt, R. S. Dhaka, Y. K. Huang, N. C. Plumb, M. Radović, J. H. Dil, E. Pomjakushina, K. Conder, A. Amato, Z. Salman, D. M. Paul, J. Mesot, H. Ding, and M. Shi, Phys. Rev. B88, 121102 (2013)

2013
[17]

Jiang, S

J. Jiang, S. Li, T. Zhang, Z. Sun, F. Chen, Z. R. Ye, M. Xu, Q. Q. Ge, S. Y. Tan, X. H. Niu, M. Xia, B. P. Xie, Y. F. Li, X. H. Chen, H. H. Wen, and D. L. Feng, Nat. Commun.4, 3010 (2013)

2013
[18]

Neupane, N

M. Neupane, N. Alidoust, S.-Y. Xu, T. Kondo, Y. Ishida, D.-J. Kim, C. Liu, I. Belopolski, Y. J. Jo, T.-R. Chang, H.-T. Jeng, T. Durakiewicz, L. Balicas, H. Lin, A. Bansil, S. Shin, Z. Fisk, and M. Z. Hasan, Nat. Commun.4, 2991 (2013)

2013
[19]

Frantzeskakis, N

E. Frantzeskakis, N. de Jong, B. Zwartsenberg, Y. K. Huang, Y. Pan, X. Zhang, J. X. Zhang, F. X. Zhang, L. H. Bao, O. Tegus, A. Varykhalov, A. de Visser, and M. S. Golden, Phys. Rev. X 3, 041024 (2013)

2013
[20]

J. D. Denlinger, J. W. Allen, J.-S. Kang, K. Sun, J. W. Kim, J. H. Shim, B.-I. Min, D.-J. Kim, and Z. Fisk, arXiv (2013), 1312.6637v1

2013 arXiv
[21]

C.-H. Min, P. Lutz, S. Fiedler, B. Y. Kang, B. K. Cho, H. D. Kim, H. Bentmann, and F. Reinert, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 226402 (2014)

2014
[22]

N. Xu, P. K. Biswas, J. H. Dil, R. S. Dhaka, G. Landolt, S. Muff, C. E. Matt, X. Shi, N. C. Plumb, M. Radović, E. Pomjakushina, K. Conder, A. Amato, S. V. Borisenko, R. Yu, H. Weng, Z. Fang, X. Dai, J. Mesot, H. Ding, and M. Shi, Nat. Commun.5, 4566 (2014)

2014
[23]

Hlawenka, K

P. Hlawenka, K. Siemensmeyer, E. Weschke, A. Varykhalov, J. Sánchez-Barriga, N. Y. Shit- sevalova, A. V. Dukhnenko, V. B. Filipov, S. Gabáni, K. Flachbart, O. Rader, and E. D. L. Rienks, Nat. Commun.9, 517 (2018)

2018
[24]

Herrmann, P

H. Herrmann, P. Hlawenka, K. Siemensmeyer, E. Weschke, J. Sánchez-Barriga, A. Varykhalov, N. Y. Shitsevalova, A. V. Dukhnenko, V. B. Filipov, S. Gabáni, K. Flachbart, O. Rader, M. Sterrer, and E. D. L. Rienks, Adv. Mater.32, 1906725 (2020)

2020
[25]

Miao, C.-H

L. Miao, C.-H. Min, Y. Xu, Z. Huang, E. C. Kotta, R. Basak, M. Song, B. Kang, B. Cho, K. Kißner, and et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 136401 (2021). 15

2021
[26]

Anisimov, V

M. Anisimov, V. Zhurkin, V. Voronov, A. Bogach, A. Bozhko, S. Demishev, O. Kudryavtsev, N. Shitsevalova, S. Gabáni, K. Flachbart, and et al., Solid State Sciences152, 107546 (2024)

2024
[27]

Ohtsubo, Y

Y. Ohtsubo, Y. Yamashita, K. Hagiwara, S.-i. Ideta, K. Tanaka, R. Yukawa, K. Horiba, H. Ku- migashira, K. Miyamoto, T. Okuda, W. Hirano, F. Iga, and S.-i. Kimura, Nat. Commun.10, 2298 (2019)

2019
[28]

Pirie, Y

H. Pirie, Y. Liu, A. Soumyanarayanan, P. Chen, Y. He, M. M. Yee, P. F. S. Rosa, J. D. Thompson, D.-J. Kim, Z. Fisk, X. Wang, J. Paglione, D. K. Morr, M. H. Hamidian, and J. E. Hoffman, Nat. Phys.104, 1 (2019)

2019
[29]

Aishwarya, Z

A. Aishwarya, Z. Cai, A. Raghavan, M. Romanelli, X. Wang, X. Li, G. D. Gu, M. Hirsbrunner, T. Hughes, F. Liu, and et al., Science377, 1218–1222 (2022)

2022
[30]

Pirie, E

H. Pirie, E. Mascot, C. E. Matt, Y. Liu, P. Chen, M. H. Hamidian, S. Saha, X. Wang, J. Paglione, G. M. Luke, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, C. Hirjibehedin, J. C. Davis, D. K. Morr, and J. E. Hoffman, Science379, 1214 (2023)

2023
[31]

Dzero, J

M. Dzero, J. Xia, V. Galitski, and P. Coleman, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.7, 249 (2016)

2016
[32]

Takimoto and K.-H

T. Takimoto and K.-H. Lee, Phil. Mag.96, 3239–3249 (2016)

2016
[33]

Iraola, I

M. Iraola, I. n. Robredo, T. Neupert, J. L. Mañes, R. Valentí, and M. G. Vergniory, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033195 (2024)

2024
[34]

Mizumaki, S

M. Mizumaki, S. Tsutsui, and F. Iga, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.176, 012034 (2009)

2009
[35]

P. S. Riseborough, Adv. Phys.49, 257 (2000)

2000
[36]

P. S. Riseborough, Phys. Rev. B45, 13984–13995 (1992)

1992
[37]

S. Suga, K. Sakamoto, T. Okuda, K. Miyamoto, K. Kuroda, A. Sekiyama, J. Yamaguchi, H. Fujiwara, A. Irizawa, and T. Ito, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.83, 014705 (2014)

2014
[38]

M. M. Yee, Y. He, A. Soumyanarayanan, D.-J. Kim, Z. Fisk, and J. E. Hoffman, arXiv (2013), 1308.1085v2

2013 arXiv
[39]

Rößler, T

S. Rößler, T. H. Jang, D.-J. Kim, L. H. Tjeng, Z. Fisk, F. Steglich, and S. Wirth, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 4798 (2014)

2014
[40]

Thunström and K

P. Thunström and K. Held, Phys. Rev. B104, 075131 (2021)

2021
[41]

H. Weng, J. Zhao, Z. Wang, Z. Fang, and X. Dai, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 016403 (2014)

2014
[42]

Frantzeskakis, N

E. Frantzeskakis, N. de Jong, J. X. Zhang, X. Zhang, Z. Li, C. L. Liang, Y. Wang, A. Varykhalov, Y. K. Huang, and M. S. Golden, Phys. Rev. B90, 235116 (2014). 16

2014
[43]

B. Y. Kang, C.-H. Min, S. S. Lee, M. S. Song, K. K. Cho, and B. K. Cho, Phys. Rev. B94, 3150 (2016)

2016
[44]

Flint, M

R. Flint, M. Dzero, and P. Coleman, Nat. Phys.4, 643–648 (2008)

2008
[45]

P. P. Baruselli and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 156404 (2015)

2015
[46]

Legner, A

M. Legner, A. Rüegg, and M. Sigrist, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 156405 (2015)

2015
[47]

H. Liu, M. M. Hirschmann, G. A. Sawatzky, G. Khaliullin, and A. P. Schnyder, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L042028 (2023)

2023
[48]

Weschke and E

E. Weschke and E. Schierle, Journal of large-scale research facilities4, A127 (2018)

2018
[49]

V. B. Zabolotnyy, K. Fürsich, R. J. Green, P. Lutz, K. Treiber, C.-H. Min, A. V. Dukhnenko, N. Y. Shitsevalova, V. B. Filipov, B. Y. Kang, and et al., Phys. Rev. B 97 (2018), 10.1103/physrevb.97.205416. 17

2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 3045 (2010)

2010

[2] [2]

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

2019

[3] [3]

Bansil, H

A. Bansil, H. Lin, and T. Das, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 021004 (2016)

2016

[4] [4]

Zhang, T

H. Zhang, T. Pincelli, C. Jozwiak, T. Kondo, R. Ernstorfer, T. Sato, and S. Zhou, Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 2, 54 (2022)

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Sánchez-Barriga, O

J. Sánchez-Barriga, O. J. Clark, and O. Rader, Encyclopedia of Condensed Matter Physics4, 334 (2024)

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Dzero and V

M. Dzero and V. Galitski, J. Exp. Theor. Phys.117, 499 (2013)

work page 2013

[7] [7]

Rachel, Rep

S. Rachel, Rep. Prog. Phys.81, 116501 (2018)

work page 2018

[8] [8]

L. Li, K. Sun, C. Kurdak, and J. W. Allen, Nat. Rev. Phys.82, 1 (2020)

work page 2020