Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Pressure-induced suppression of charge density wave and emergence of Superconductivity in 1T-VSe2

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pressure above 15 GPa suppresses the charge density wave in 1T-VSe2 and induces superconductivity near 4 K.

desk verdict Careful high-pressure transport study of 1T-VSe2 with a genuinely new phase diagram, but the superconducting claim is not yet established as bulk and needs confirmation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11678 v1 pith:7ILLMMTF submitted 2019-08-30 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con

S. Sahoo , U. Dutta , L. Harnagea , A.K. Sood , S. Karmakar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.supr-con
keywords 1T-VSe2chargedensitywavesuperconductivityhighpressuretransitionmetaldichalcogenidesKondoscatteringmagnetoresistancephasediagram
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

1T-VSe2 is a layered metal whose electrons and lattice already form a charge density wave (CDW), a periodic modulation that sets in near 110 K at ambient pressure. This paper reports that squeezing the crystal above about 15 GPa destroys that order and, in the same pressure range, produces a superconducting transition with an onset near 4 K that drifts to only about 5 K by 22 GPa. The authors read the phase diagram from resistance, magnetoresistance, Hall, and magnetization data, and they place the disappearance of the CDW and the appearance of superconductivity in separate pressure windows rather than overlapping phases. The result matters because it would add 1T-VSe2 to the family of transition-metal dichalcogenides in which pressure turns an ordered metal into a superconductor, but with a nearly flat instead of dome-shaped pressure dependence of the critical temperature.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pressure-temperature phase diagram assembled from four-probe resistance, magnetoresistance, Hall resistance, and dc susceptibility measurements in a diamond anvil cell, with NaCl as a quasi-hydrostatic medium up to 22 GPa. The ordering temperature of the charge density wave is read from the minimum in $dR/dT$, and the superconducting onset is the partial resistance drop with a small diamagnetic shielding signal below about 4 K. The argumentative load is carried by the Hall coefficient and magnetoresistance, which mark Fermi surface reconstructions at roughly 6 and 12 GPa, and by the negative magnetoresistance near 6 GPa attributed to frustrated magnetic moments on the triangular vanadium lattice.

What would settle it

Measure the specific heat or field-cooled magnetization of a pressurized 1T-VSe2 crystal at 15–22 GPa down to 1 K: a true bulk superconducting transition would show a specific-heat jump or a substantial Meissner expulsion, while their absence alongside a partial resistance drop would indicate filamentary or surface superconductivity. In addition, a clean stoichiometric crystal that shows zero resistance and a sharp transition would confirm the intrinsic character of the state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a pressure-temperature phase diagram for 1T-VSe2 in which the CDW ordering temperature first rises from about 110 K to about 240 K at 12 GPa, then collapses, and a superconducting state with onset $T_c \approx 4$ K appears above roughly 15 GPa. The critical temperature increases only marginally with pressure, reaching about 5 K at 22 GPa, so the superconducting region does not form the dome seen in related layered diselenides. Magnetoresistance and Hall measurements show electronic structure changes near 6 GPa and again near 12 GPa, with the Hall coefficient changing sign at low temperature at 12 GPa, indicating that a hole pocket becomes dominant. Because the superconducting onset appears only after the CDW anomaly disappears, the authors conclude the two orders do not coexist, and they propose that recently identified intra-layer spin fluctuations, rather than CDW fluctuations, may mediate the pairing.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the partial resistance drop and small diamagnetic signal below about 4 K at pressures above 15 GPa are genuine bulk superconductivity, rather than filamentary superconducting islands, strain-related domains, or an instrumental artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pressures above about 15 GPa place 1T-VSe2 in a superconducting state whose $T_c$ changes by only about 1 K between 15 and 22 GPa, in contrast to the strongly pressure-dependent or dome-shaped superconductivity of other layered diselenides.
  • CDW and superconductivity occupy separate pressure windows, so if the paper is right, CDW fluctuations are not the pairing glue in the high-pressure phase.
  • The upper critical field at zero temperature, $H_{c2}(0) \approx 1.9$ T obtained from a Ginzburg-Landau fit, places this superconductivity in the same range as other layered transition-metal dichalcogenides.
  • The Kondo upturn from interlayer vanadium moments is suppressed by about 12 GPa and the superconducting transition remains incomplete, consistent with the paper's attribution of the broad transition to Kondo scattering from those moments.
  • On decompression, a superconducting resistance drop persists down to about 10 GPa without the CDW reappearing, indicating that pressure history, not just the instantaneous pressure, shapes the ground state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a bulk thermodynamic measurement at 15–22 GPa finds no specific-heat anomaly or substantial Meissner expulsion, then the observed partial resistance drop and small shielding fraction would be better described as filamentary superconductivity rather than a bulk phase; this is a direct test the paper's own data invite.
  • The near-constant $T_c$ suggests the pairing energy scale is set by something insensitive to pressure, such as a magnetic exchange interaction; measuring the isotope effect or the field-angle dependence of $H_{c2}$ could separate spin-fluctuation pairing from conventional phonon pairing.
  • The decompression data imply possible hysteresis in the CDW-to-metal transition; a compression-decompression cycle with x-ray diffraction would show whether the suppression of the CDW is tied to a first-order structural change or to strain and defect effects.
  • A cleaner stoichiometric crystal, or post-growth annealing, should sharpen or eliminate the broad transition; if the transition remains incomplete in a defect-free sample, the intrinsic nature of the superconducting phase would be called into question.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a high-pressure transport study of 1T-VSe2 single crystals. The authors find that the CDW ordering temperature rises from about 110 K at ambient pressure to about 240 K at 12 GPa, that the CDW resistance anomaly is suppressed at higher pressures, and that partial resistance drops below about 4-5 K appear for pressures of 15 GPa and above, accompanied by a small diamagnetic response in dc susceptibility. These observations are interpreted as pressure-induced superconductivity with an almost pressure-independent onset Tc, leading to a P-T phase diagram in which CDW and SC do not coexist. Hall and magnetoresistance data are used to infer successive Fermi-surface modifications near 6 and 12 GPa, and the authors propose intra-layer spin fluctuations as a possible pairing mechanism.

Significance. The study addresses a clear open question, namely whether 1T-VSe2, a correlated TMDC with three-dimensional CDW order, becomes superconducting under pressure. The transport data are reported transparently, including field-dependent R(T), current dependence, and an explicit acknowledgment that zero resistance is not achieved. A near-constant Tc of about 4-5 K between 15 and 22 GPa, if confirmed, would be a distinctive result compared with the dome-shaped pressure dependence seen in related diselenides. The central problem is not the internal consistency of the transport data but the strength of the inference from a partial resistance drop and a small shielding fraction to a bulk superconducting phase; a quantitative Meissner or thermodynamic check, or a substantially tempered claim, is needed before the headline result can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Fig. 4a and inset] The evidence for bulk superconductivity is incomplete. The text states that "SC transition is not complete" and that "zero resistance is not achieved in four-probe resistance measurements (even from repeated loading)", and the susceptibility inset shows only a small diamagnetic signal that the authors describe as "of filamentary nature in absence of zero resistance". A partial resistance drop and a small shielding fraction are exactly the signatures expected for filamentary or minority-phase superconductivity, so the statement "bulk nature is verified" is not supported by a quantitative shielding-fraction estimate, a quantitative field-cooled Meissner analysis, or a thermodynamic anomaly such as a specific-heat jump. Because the onset Tc values and the phase diagram in Fig. 3a rest on this transition, the central claim that bulk superconductivity emerges in the high-pressure phase is not yet established.
  2. [Sec. 3, Fig. 3a and concluding paragraph] The conclusion that CDW and SC do not coexist is not established by the transport data alone. The phase diagram in Fig. 3a places the SC region only after the CDW resistance anomaly has disappeared, and the text argues that because SC appears "after CDW state completely gets suppressed", the two orders do not coexist. However, if the SC signal is filamentary, it could originate in a minority phase while CDW order remains in the majority; conversely, the absence of a CDW anomaly in R(T) is not a sensitive structural probe. A structural or thermodynamic measurement across the 10-15 GPa range, or at least a clear statement that non-coexistence is an inference from transport rather than a directly measured property, is required.
  3. [Sec. 4, Fig. 4b and inset] The Ginzburg-Landau fit gives Hc2(0)=1.9 T, but the fit is applied to a resistance drop that is partial and broad, with no stated criterion for defining Tc(H) from the R(T) or R(H) curves. Without a defined onset or midpoint criterion and associated uncertainties, Hc2(0) should be treated as an effective value for the filamentary-resistive feature rather than a confirmed bulk upper critical field. This point is secondary to the main superconductivity claim but should be clarified in a revision.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3a] The onset Tc values are plotted without error bars, and the criterion for defining Tc(onset) from the broad partial resistance drops is not stated; this definition and the experimental uncertainties should be given.
  2. [Sec. 3, Fig. 3b and Fig. 3c] The Hall coefficient RH is computed from Rxy/H at H=7 T, but Fig. 3b shows strongly nonlinear Rxy(H) at 6.6 and 9.4 GPa; the single-field Hall coefficient is therefore not a clean measure of carrier concentration, and the statements about carrier concentration changes should either be justified with a multi-band analysis or explicitly presented as qualitative.
  3. [Bibliography, reference 31] The supplemental material link appears as "[http:// ]" in the reference list; the actual URL is missing and must be completed.
  4. [Fig. 4a inset] The inset plots magnetization M as a function of temperature rather than dc susceptibility, and the background subtraction and absolute scale are not described; this makes the shielding-fraction estimate difficult for the reader to assess.
  5. [Methods and Fig. 2] The NaCl pressure medium is quasi-hydrostatic, and possible pressure gradients and their effect on the broad transition widths and on the extracted Tc values should be discussed explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Experimental transport report with no circular derivation chain; the central claims rest on direct resistance, magnetoresistance, Hall, and susceptibility measurements, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

This is an experimental study of pressure-tuned 1T-VSe2, not a derivation. The CDW ordering temperature is read from the dR/dT minimum, the SC onset is read from the resistance drop and the diamagnetic signal, and the phase diagram is compiled from these directly measured quantities. The only quantitative fit is the Ginzburg-Landau fit to Hc2(T), which is a conventional parametrization of the measured upper critical field and not a prediction derived from the same data in a way that would make the result tautological. The paper's self-citations (refs. 7, 8, 31, 32) are to the authors' prior apparatus, supplementary data, and earlier TMDC studies; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for the central claim. The statement that 'the bulk nature is verified' while the shielding fraction is small is a limitation on the strength of the superconductivity evidence, not a circular step; it concerns correctness and would need bulk thermodynamic confirmation, but it does not mean the conclusion was assumed in the input. No equation in the paper defines a target quantity in terms of itself or fits a parameter to the very quantity later called a prediction. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

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

No new entities are introduced; the paper postulates a mechanism (spin fluctuations) but no new particle or force. The free parameters are only standard fits to characterize the superconducting state.

free parameters (1)
  • Hc2(0) from Ginzburg-Landau fit = 1.9 T
    Upper critical field at zero temperature fitted with the GL formula from field-dependent resistance data near Tc (inset of Fig. 4b). This is a standard characterization parameter, not central to the main phase diagram claim.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The resistance anomaly and dR/dT minimum identify the CDW transition temperature.
    The paper uses the minimum in dR/dT to define T_CDW (inset of Fig. 1b), a convention used in prior TMDC literature.
  • domain assumption The interlayer excess V ions act as Kondo impurities and their spin scattering explains the low-temperature resistance upturn and negative MR.
    This is inferred from prior work (ref 19) and the observed Curie-Weiss susceptibility; it is used to interpret the transport data.
  • domain assumption Intra-layer spin fluctuations exist in this compound and can mediate superconductivity.
    The proposal that spin fluctuations play a role is based on monolayer studies (ref 29) and the observed negative MR, but no direct measurement of spin fluctuations in the bulk high-pressure phase is presented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pressure-induced suppression of charge density wave and emergence of Superconductivity in 1T-VSe2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7ILLMMTF

@misc{pith2026190811678,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pressure-induced suppression of charge density wave and emergence of Superconductivity in 1T-VSe2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7ILLMMTF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11678}
}
read the original abstract

We report pressure evolution of charge density wave (CDW) order and emergence of superconductivity (SC) in 1T-VSe2 single crystal by studying resistance and magnetoresistance behavior under high pressure. With increasing quasi-hydrostatic pressure the CDW order enhances with increase ofthe ordering temperature up to 240K at 12 GPa. Upon further increase of pressure, the resistance anomaly due to CDW order gets suppressed drastically and superconductivity emerges at ~15 GPa, with the onset critical temperature (Tc) ~ 4K. The pressure dependence of Tc is found negligible, different from the significant increase or a dome-shape seen in iso-structural layered diselenide superconductors. The high pressure magnetoresistance and Hall measurements suggest successive electronic structural changes with Fermi surface modifications at 6 GPa and 12GPa. From the observed negative magnetoresistance in this pressure range and absence of coexisting CDW and SC phases, we propose that intra-layer spin-fluctuation can play a role in the emergence of superconductivity in the high pressure phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11678 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (Color online) (a) In-plane resistance of 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (Color online) (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: (Color online) (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    author A. V. Kolobov and author J. Tominaga , title Two-dimensional Transition Metal Dichalcogenides ( publisher Springer Series in Material Science vol. 239 , year 2016 )

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Sipos , author A

    author B. Sipos , author A. F. Kusmartseva , author A. Akrap , author H. Berger , author L. Forr , and author E. Tutis , journal Nature Mater. volume 7 , pages 960 ( year 2008 )

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Ang , author Y

    author R. Ang , author Y. Tanaka , author E. Ieki , author K. Nakayama , author T. Sato , author L. J. Li , author W. J. Lu , author Y. P. Sun , and author T. Takahashi , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 109 , pages 176403 ( year 2012 )

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Wang , author Y

    author B. Wang , author Y. Liu , author K. Ishigaki , author K. Matsubayashi , author J. Cheng , author W. Lu , author Y. Sun , and author Y. Uwatoko , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 95 , pages 220501 ( year 2017 )

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Morosan , author H

    author E. Morosan , author H. W. Zandbergen , author B. S. Dennis , author J. W. G. Bos , author Y. Onose , author A. P. R. T. Klimczuk and , author N. P. Ong , and author R. J. Cava , journal Nature Phys. volume 2 , pages 544 ( year 2006 )

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    author A. F. Kusmartseva , author B. Sipos , author H. Berger , author L. Forr , and author E. Tuti , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 103 , pages 236401 ( year 2009 )

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Dutta , author P

    author U. Dutta , author P. S. Malavi , author S. Sahoo , author B. Joseph , and author S. Karmakar , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 97 , pages 060503(R) ( year 2018 )

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Dutta , author S

    author U. Dutta , author S. Sahoo , author P. S. Malavi , author F. Piccirilli , author P. D. Pietro , author A. Perucchi , author S. Lupi , and author S. Karmakar , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 99 , pages 125105 ( year 2019 )

    work page 2019

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Barath , author M

    author H. Barath , author M. Kim , author J. F. Karpus , author S. L. Cooper , author P. Abbamonte , author E. Fradkin , author E. Morosan , and author R. J. Cava , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 100 , pages 106402 ( year 2008 )

    2008

  2. [10]

    author Y. I. Joe , author X. M. Chen , author P. Ghaemi , author K. D. Finkelstein , author G. A. de la Pea , author Y. Gan , author J. C. T. Lee , author S. Yuan , author J. Geck , author G. J. M. andT. C. Chiang , et al. , journal Nature Phys. volume 10 , pages 421 ( year 2014 )

    2014

  3. [11]

    Kogar , author G

    author A. Kogar , author G. de la Pena , author S. Lee , author Y. Fang , author S.-L. Sun , author D. Lioi , author G. Karapetrov , author K. Finkelstein , author J. Ruff , author P. Abbamonte , et al. , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 118 , pages 027002 ( year 2017 )

    2017

  4. [12]

    author S. Y. Li , author G. Wu , author X. H. Chen , and author L. Taillefer , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 99 , pages 107001 ( year 2007 )

    2007

  5. [13]

    Liu , author D

    author Y. Liu , author D. F. Shao , author L. J. Li , author W. J. Lu , author X. D. Zhu , author P. Tong , author R. C. Xiao , author L. S. Ling , author C. Y. Xi , author L. Pi , et al. , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 94 , pages 045131 ( year 2016 )

    2016

  6. [14]

    Tsutsumi , journal Phys

    author K. Tsutsumi , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 26 , pages 5756 ( year 1982 )

    1982

  7. [15]

    Terashima , author T

    author K. Terashima , author T. Sato , author H. Komatsu , author T. Takahashi , author N. Maeda , and author K. Hayashi , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 68 , pages 155108 ( year 2003 )

    2003

  8. [16]

    author V. N. Strocov , author M. Shi , author M. Kobayashi , author C. Monney , author X. Wang , author J. Krempasky , author T. Schmitt , author L.Patthey , author H. Berger , and author P. Blaha , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 109 , pages 086401 ( year 2012 )

    2012

  9. [17]

    Jolie , author T

    author W. Jolie , author T. Knispel , author N. Ehlen , author K. Nikonov , author C. Busse , author A. Grneis , and author T. Michely , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 99 , pages 115417 ( year 2019 )

    2019

  10. [18]

    author C. F. van Bruggen and author C. Haas , journal Solid State Commun. volume 20 , pages 251 ( year 1976 )

    1976

  11. [19]

    Barua , author M

    author S. Barua , author M. C. Hatnean , author M. R. Lees , and author G. Balakrishnan , journal Sci. Rep. volume 7 , pages 10964 ( year 2017 )

    2017

  12. [20]

    author H. I. Starnberg , author H. E. Brauer , author L. J. Holleboom , and author H. P. Hughes , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 70 , pages 3111 ( year 1993 )

    1993

  13. [21]

    author H. E. Brauer , author H. I. Starnberg , author L. J. Holleboom , author V. N. Strocov , and author H. P. Hughes , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 58 , pages 10031 ( year 1998 )

    1998

  14. [22]

    Yang , author W

    author J. Yang , author W. Wang , author Y. Liu , author H. Du , author W. Ning , author G. Zheng , author C. Jin , author Y. Han , author N. Wang , author Z. Yang , et al. , journal Appl. Phys. Lett. volume 105 , pages 063109 ( year 2014 )

    2014

  15. [23]

    Pasztor , author A

    author A. Pasztor , author A. Scarfato , author C. Barreteau , author E. Giannini , and author C. Renner , journal 2D Mater. volume 4 , pages 041005 ( year 2017 )

    2017

  16. [24]

    Zhang , author J

    author D. Zhang , author J. Ha , author H. Baek , author Y.-H. Chan , author F. D. Natterer , author A. F. Myers , author J. D. Schumacher , author W. G. Cullen , author A. V. Davydov , author Y. Kuk , et al. , journal Phys. Rev. Mater. volume 1 , pages 024005 ( year 2017 )

    2017

  17. [25]

    Chen , author W

    author P. Chen , author W. W. Pai , author Y.-H. Chan , author V. Madhavan , author M. Y. Chou , author S.-K. Mo , author A.-V. Fedorov , and author T.-C. Chiang , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 121 , pages 196402 ( year 2018 )

    2018

  18. [26]

    Duvjir , author B

    author G. Duvjir , author B. K. Choi , author I. Jang , author S. Ulstrup , author S. Kang , author T. T. Ly , author S. Kim , author Y. H. Choi , author C. Jozwiak , author A. Bostwick , et al. , journal Nano Lett. volume 18 , pages 5432 ( year 2018 )

    2018

  19. [27]

    Umemoto , author K

    author Y. Umemoto , author K. Sugawara , author Y. Nakata , author T. Takahashi , and author T. Sato , journal Nano Research volume 12 , pages 165 ( year 2019 )

    2019

  20. [28]

    Esters , author R

    author M. Esters , author R. G. Hennig , and author D. C. Johnson , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 96 , pages 235147 ( year 2017 )

    2017

  21. [29]

    author P. K. J. Wong , author W. Zhang , author F. Bussolotti , author X. Yin , author T. S. Herng , author L. Zhang , author Y. L. Huang , author G. Vinai , author S. Krishnamurthi , author D. W. Bukhvalov , et al. , journal Adv. Mater. volume 31 , pages 1901185 ( year 2019 )

    2019

  22. [30]

    author R. H. Friend , author D.Jerome , author D.M.Schleich , and author P.Molinie , journal Solid State Commun. volume 27 , pages 169 ( year 1978 )

    1978

  23. [31]

    note See supplemental material [http:// ] for synthesis, characterization by x-ray diffraction and chemical composition analysis, resistivity and magnetic susceptibility on as grown sample, magnified figure of P-variation of the Kondo resistance upturn, magneto-resistance at 1...

  24. [32]

    Karmakar , journal High Pressure Research volume 33 , pages 381 ( year 2013 )

    author S. Karmakar , journal High Pressure Research volume 33 , pages 381 ( year 2013 )

    2013

  25. [33]

    author F. J. D. Salvo , author D. E. Moncton , and author J. V. Waszczak , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 14 , pages 4321 ( year 1976 )

    1976

  26. [34]

    author J. S. Schilling and author W. B. Holzapfel , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 8 , pages 1216 ( year 1973 )

    1973

  27. [35]

    Olijnyk , author J

    author H. Olijnyk , author J. Crone , and author E. Luscher , journal Z. Phys. B Condensed Matter volume 43 , pages 299 ( year 1981 )

    1981

  28. [36]

    author M. B. Maple , journal Appl. Phys. volume 9 , pages 179 ( year 1976 )

    1976

  29. [37]

    Guo , author J

    author Y. Guo , author J. Dai , author J. Zhao , author C. Wu , author D. Li , author L. Zhang , author W. Ning , author M. Tian , author X. C. Zeng , and author Y. Xie , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 113 , pages 157202 ( year 2014 )

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.