pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.12676 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-14 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el · cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Robust topological surface states in skyrmion-host magnets Eu(Ga,Al)4: evidence for dual topology

Yuki Arai , Kosuke Nakayama , Takemi Kato , Tomonori Nakamura , Asuka Honma , Seigo Souma , Kenichi Ozawa , Kiyohisa Tanaka
show 5 more authors
Daisuke Shiga Hiroshi Kumigashira Yoshinori Okada Kouji Segawa Takafumi Sato
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 14:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords topological surface statesDirac nodal linesskyrmionsEu(Ga,Al)4ARPEShelical antiferromagnetic orderdual topologymagneto-topological coupling
0
0 comments X

The pith

Eu(Ga,Al)4 compounds host both skyrmions and robust topological surface states from bulk Dirac nodal lines, establishing dual topology.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aims to prove that the skyrmion-hosting magnets Eu(Ga,Al)4 also possess momentum-space topology alongside their real-space magnetic topology. High-resolution angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy directly images topological surface states tied to bulk Dirac nodal lines. These states stay intact under surface reconstruction, altered chemical termination, and the onset of helical antiferromagnetic order, with replica bands appearing below the Néel temperature that depend on surface termination. A sympathetic reader would care because the result supplies a concrete material platform where real-space and momentum-space topologies can interact and be controlled together.

Core claim

Direct ARPES measurements show topological surface states stemming from bulk Dirac nodal lines in Eu(Ga,Al)4. These states remain stable against a 2×1 surface reconstruction, changes in crystal surface termination, and the onset of helical antiferromagnetic order. Below the Néel temperature, magnetic ordering produces replica bands whose appearance exhibits clear surface-termination dependence, demonstrating magneto-topological coupling.

What carries the argument

Topological surface states originating from bulk Dirac nodal lines, observed to persist through multiple surface and magnetic perturbations.

If this is right

  • The dual topology supplies a platform for exploring interactions between skyrmions and topological surface states.
  • Magnetic ordering below the Néel temperature generates replica bands in the surface states.
  • Surface termination can be used to tune the strength of the magneto-topological coupling.
  • The family Eu(Ga,Al)4 realizes coexistence of real-space and momentum-space topology in one material.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The observed robustness may permit studies of topological states across magnetic phase boundaries without loss of protection.
  • Analogous dual-topology behavior could be tested in other skyrmion-hosting compounds to identify a wider class.
  • Tuning the helical order might offer a route to modulate the properties of the Dirac nodal lines themselves.

Load-bearing premise

The detected bands must be topological surface states from bulk Dirac nodal lines rather than trivial surface states or bulk projections, and the replica bands must arise specifically from the magnetic order.

What would settle it

If the photoemission spectra lack the expected linear dispersion protected against the listed perturbations, or if replica bands appear without the onset of antiferromagnetic order, the assignment of dual topology would be ruled out.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.12676 by Asuka Honma, Daisuke Shiga, Hiroshi Kumigashira, Kenichi Ozawa, Kiyohisa Tanaka, Kosuke Nakayama, Kouji Segawa, Seigo Souma, Takafumi Sato, Takemi Kato, Tomonori Nakamura, Yoshinori Okada, Yuki Arai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Crystal structure of EuGa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Side view of the crystal, illustrating the two possible surface terminations (Eu monolayer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) and (b) ARPES-intensity plots measured at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) ARPES-intensity mapping at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The interplay between real-space topology such as magnetic skyrmions and momentum-space topology characterized by topological surface states (TSSs) is predicted to realize novel phenomena and functionalities, yet materials hosting both topologies are scarce. Skyrmion-hosting helimagnet family EuGa$_2$Al$_2$ and EuAl$_4$ has been a prime candidate for such a dual-topology system, but conclusive evidence for its momentum-space topology has remained elusive. We provide this evidence by directly observing TSSs that stem from bulk Dirac nodal lines using high-resolution angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy. These TSSs are exceptionally robust against various perturbations such as a 2$\times$1 surface reconstruction, a chemical change in the termination of the crystal surface, and the onset of helical antiferromagnetic order. Crucially, below the Neel temperature, we observe replica bands driven by the magnetic ordering. Moreover, we demonstrate clear surface-termination dependence of this magneto-topological coupling. Our findings establish Eu(Ga$_{1-x}$Al$_x$)$_4$ as a dual-topology material and offer a rare platform to explore and control the interaction between the two fundamental topological realms.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports high-resolution ARPES measurements on Eu(Ga,Al)4 compounds, claiming direct observation of topological surface states (TSSs) that originate from bulk Dirac nodal lines. It asserts that these TSSs remain robust against 2×1 surface reconstruction, changes in surface termination, and the onset of helical antiferromagnetic order below the Néel temperature, with additional observation of magnetic replica bands whose appearance depends on surface termination, thereby establishing the material family as a dual-topology platform combining skyrmion real-space topology with momentum-space topology.

Significance. If the band assignments and robustness claims hold, the work would establish a rare experimental platform for studying the interplay between skyrmions and topological surface states, with potential implications for magneto-topological phenomena. The reported termination-dependent magneto-topological coupling and persistence of TSSs through magnetic ordering would be notable additions to the literature on dual-topology materials.

major comments (3)
  1. [ARPES data analysis] ARPES data analysis (likely §3 or equivalent): the central claim that the observed dispersions are TSSs stemming from bulk Dirac nodal lines requires explicit photon-energy-dependent measurements or k_z mapping to demonstrate surface localization and to exclude projected bulk states or trivial surface resonances; the current assignment appears to rest primarily on visual similarity to expected nodal-line projections without such direct correspondence.
  2. [Magnetic ordering section] Magnetic ordering section (below T_N): the attribution of replica bands specifically to helical antiferromagnetic order (rather than matrix-element effects, residual reconstruction, or other perturbations) is load-bearing for the magneto-topological coupling claim, yet lacks quantitative modeling of the magnetic Brillouin zone folding or direct comparison to calculated surface states under the AF structure.
  3. [Robustness claims] Robustness claims: while checks against 2×1 reconstruction and termination change are presented, the absence of a calculated surface-projected band structure from the bulk Dirac nodal lines means the observed features could still be unrelated to the nodal lines, weakening the evidence for dual topology.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions and labels could more clearly indicate the expected positions of Dirac nodal line projections versus observed TSS dispersions for easier reader verification.
  2. [Methods] The manuscript would benefit from an explicit statement of the bulk band-structure calculation method (DFT parameters, etc.) used to identify the Dirac nodal lines.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable suggestions. We have carefully considered each comment and revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of our ARPES results and the evidence for dual topology in Eu(Ga,Al)4. Below we address the major comments point by point.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [ARPES data analysis] ARPES data analysis (likely §3 or equivalent): the central claim that the observed dispersions are TSSs stemming from bulk Dirac nodal lines requires explicit photon-energy-dependent measurements or k_z mapping to demonstrate surface localization and to exclude projected bulk states or trivial surface resonances; the current assignment appears to rest primarily on visual similarity to expected nodal-line projections without such direct correspondence.

    Authors: We agree that demonstrating surface localization through kz dependence is important for confirming the topological surface states. In the original manuscript, we relied on the consistency of the observed bands with the projected bulk Dirac nodal lines across different surface conditions. To address this, we have added photon-energy-dependent ARPES data in the revised version (new Supplementary Figure S1), which shows that the candidate TSS dispersions exhibit minimal variation with photon energy, indicating negligible kz dispersion characteristic of surface states. We have also updated the text in Section 3 to explicitly discuss this evidence and rule out bulk projections. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Magnetic ordering section] Magnetic ordering section (below T_N): the attribution of replica bands specifically to helical antiferromagnetic order (rather than matrix-element effects, residual reconstruction, or other perturbations) is load-bearing for the magneto-topological coupling claim, yet lacks quantitative modeling of the magnetic Brillouin zone folding or direct comparison to calculated surface states under the AF structure.

    Authors: The appearance of replica bands exclusively below the Néel temperature, with wavevector matching the helical magnetic ordering, provides strong evidence for their magnetic origin. We have revised the magnetic ordering section to include a quantitative comparison of the replica band positions to the expected folding from the magnetic Brillouin zone based on the known propagation vector of the helical AF order. While a full first-principles calculation of surface states under the AF structure is computationally intensive and not included in the current work, the observed termination dependence of the replicas supports the magneto-topological coupling interpretation. We have added this discussion to the manuscript. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Robustness claims] Robustness claims: while checks against 2×1 reconstruction and termination change are presented, the absence of a calculated surface-projected band structure from the bulk Dirac nodal lines means the observed features could still be unrelated to the nodal lines, weakening the evidence for dual topology.

    Authors: We acknowledge that an explicit calculated surface-projected band structure would provide additional support. However, the manuscript includes DFT calculations of the bulk band structure showing the Dirac nodal lines, and the surface states are assigned based on their location in the surface Brillouin zone matching the projections of these nodal lines. The experimental robustness to surface perturbations, including reconstruction and termination changes, is difficult to explain for trivial resonances and supports the topological assignment. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the discussion in the robustness section to better link the observations to the bulk nodal line projections. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: claims rest on direct ARPES observations without self-referential derivations

full rationale

The manuscript presents experimental evidence from high-resolution ARPES for topological surface states linked to bulk Dirac nodal lines in Eu(Ga,Al)4, with robustness tested against surface reconstructions, terminations, and magnetic order. No load-bearing steps involve equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citations that reduce the central claim to its own inputs by construction. The abstract and described observations are self-contained spectroscopic assignments and checks, independent of any prior fitted results or uniqueness theorems from the same authors. This is the expected outcome for a direct-observation paper with no theoretical derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an experimental ARPES study; the central claim relies on standard domain assumptions for interpreting photoemission spectra in topological materials but introduces no free parameters, new entities, or ad-hoc postulates.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard ARPES interpretation rules for identifying topological surface states from bulk band crossings
    The assignment of observed bands to Dirac nodal lines and surface states follows established condensed-matter conventions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5573 in / 1354 out tokens · 74339 ms · 2026-05-10T14:19:54.945808+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    U. K. R¨ ossler, A. N. Bogdanov, and C. Pfleiderer, Nature442, 797 (2006)

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    M¨ uhlbauer, B

    S. M¨ uhlbauer, B. Binz, F. Jonietz, C. Pfleiderer, A. Rosch, A. Neubauer, R. Georgii, and P. B¨ oni, Science323, 1166767 (2009)

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y. Tokura, Nat. Nanotech.8, 899 (2013). 8

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    M. Lee, N. Kang, Y. Onose, Y. Tokura, and N. P. Ong, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 186601 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Neubauer, C

    A. Neubauer, C. Pfleiderer, B. Binz, A. Rosch, R. Ritz, P. G. Niklowitz, and P. B¨ oni, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 186602 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Shiomi, N

    Y. Shiomi, N. Kanazawa, K. Shibata, Y. Onose, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. B88, 064409 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    A. Fert, V. Cros, and J. Sampaio, Nat. Nanotech.8, 152 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Sampaio, V

    J. Sampaio, V. Cros, S. Rohart, A. Thiaville, and A. Fert, Nat. Nanotech.8, 839 (2013)

    work page 2013

  9. [9]

    G¨ obel, I

    B. G¨ obel, I. Mertig, and O. A. Tretiakov, Physics Reports895, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 146802 (2005)

    work page 2005

  11. [11]

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 226801 (2005)

    work page 2005

  12. [12]

    B. A. Bernevig and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 106802 (2006)

    work page 2006

  13. [13]

    Y. Xia, D. Qian, D. Hsieh, L. Wray, A. Pal, H. Lin, A. Bansil, D. Grauer, Y. S. Hor, R. J. Cava, and M. Z. Hasan, Nat. Phys.5, 398 (2009)

    work page 2009

  14. [14]

    Y. L. Chen, J. G. Analytis, J.-H. Chu, Z. K. Liu, S.-K. Mo, X. L. Qi, H. J. Zhang, D. H. Lu, X. Dai, Z. Fang, S. C. Zhang, I. R. Fisher, Z. Hussain, and Z.-X. Shen, Science325, 178 (2009)

    work page 2009

  15. [15]

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

    work page 2010

  16. [16]

    Qi and S.-C

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

    work page 2011

  17. [17]

    Y. Ando, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.82, 102001 (2013)

    work page 2013

  18. [18]

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

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Sato and Y

    M. Sato and Y. Ando, Rep. Prog. Phys.80, 076501 (2017)

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    H. M. Hurst, D. K. Efimkin, J. Zang, and V. Galitski, Phys. Rev. B91, 060401(R) (2015)

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    Andrikopoulos, B

    D. Andrikopoulos, B. Sore, and J. De Boeck, J. Appl. Phys.119, 193903 (2016)

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    Kurebayashi and O

    D. Kurebayashi and O. A. Tretiakov, Phys. Rev. Research4, 043105 (2022)

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    H. Wu, F. Groß, B. Dai, D. Lujan, S. A. Razavi, P. Zhang, Y. Liu, K. Sobotkiewich, J. F¨ orster, M. Weigand, G. Sch¨ utz, X. Li, J. Gr¨ afe, and K. L. Wang, Adv. Funct. Mater.32, 2003380 (2020)

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    J. M. Moya, J. Huang, S. Lei, K. Allen, Y. Gao, Y. Sun, M. Yi, and E. Morosan, Phys. Rev. B108, 064436 (2023)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Nakamura, T

    A. Nakamura, T. Uejo, F. Honda, T. Takeuchi, H. Harima, E. Yamamoto, Y. Haga, K. Matsubayashi, Y. Uwatoko, M. Hedo, T. Nakama, and Y. Onuki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.84, 9 124711 (2015)

    work page 2015

  26. [26]

    Takagi, N

    R. Takagi, N. Matsuyama, V. Ukleev, L. Yu, J. S. White, S. Francoual, J. R. L. Mardegan, S. Hayami, H. Saito, K. Kaneko, K. Ohishi, Y. ¯Onuki, T. Arima, Y. Tokura, T. Nakajima, and S. Seki, Nat. Commun.13, 1472 (2022)

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    S. Lei, K. Allen, J. Huang, J. M. Moya, T. C. Wu, B. Casas, Y. Zhang, J. S. Oh, M. Hashimoto, D. Lu, J. Denlinger, C. Jozwiak, A. Bostwick, E. Rotenberg, L. Balicas, R. Birgeneau, M. S. Foster, M. Yi, Y. Sun, and E. Morosan, Nat. Commun.14, 5812 (2023)

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Shang, Y

    T. Shang, Y. Xu, D. J. Gawryluk, J. Z. Ma, T. Shiroka, M. Shi, and E. Pomjakushina, Phys. Rev. B103, L020405 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Shang, Y

    T. Shang, Y. Xu, S. Gao, R. Yang, T. Shiroka, and M. Shi, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter.37, 013002 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Y. Arai, K. Nakayama, A. Honma, S. Souma, D. Shiga, H. Kumigashira, T. Takahashi, K. Segawa, and T. Sato, Nat. Commun.17, 3162 (2026)

    work page 2026

  31. [31]

    Hayami, J

    S. Hayami, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.91, 023705 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Hayami, J

    S. Hayami, J. Phys. Mater.6, 014006 (2023)

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Kobata,, S.-i

    M. Kobata,, S.-i. Fujimori, Y. Takeda, T. Okane, Y. Saitoh, K. Kobayashi, H. Yamagami, A. Nakamura, M. Hedo, T. Nakama, and Y. Onuki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.85, 094703 (2016)

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    Kuthanazhi, P

    A.Eaton, B. Kuthanazhi, P. C. Canfield, B. Schrunk, N. H. Jo, Y. Kushnirenko, E. O’Leary, L.-L. Wang, and A. Kaminski, Phys. Rev. B110, 125150 (2024)

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    H. Miao, J. Bouaziz, G. Fabbris, W. R. Meier, F. Z. Yang, H. X. Li, C. Nelson, E. Vescovo, S. Zhang, A. D. Christianson, H. N. Lee, Y. Zhang, C. D. Batista, and S. Bl¨ ugel, Phys. Rev. X14, 011053 (2024)

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    T. Li, L. Chen, J. Yuan, Z. Liu, Y. Yang, Z. Jiang, J. Ding, J. Liu, J. Liu, Z. Sun, Y. Guo, T. Zhang, and D. Shen, preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.04742

    work page arXiv

  37. [37]

    See Supplemental Material at (URL), which includes Refs. [30, 38, 47–53], for details of the experimental conditions, mesh grid noise reduction, band calculations, photon energy depen- dence of ARPES spectra, calculated FS, roles of SOC and magnetism, core level spectra, additional STM data, and magnetic band folding

    work page

  38. [38]

    Stavinoha, J

    M. Stavinoha, J. A. Cooley, S. G. Minasian, T. M. McQueen, S. M. Kauzlarich, C.-L. Huang, and E. Morosan, Phys. Rev. B97, 195146 (2018)

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    J. M. Moya, S. Lei, E. M. Clements, C. S. Kengle, S. Sun, K. Allen, Q. Li, Y. Y. Peng, and 10 A. A. Husain, Phys. Rev. Mater.6, 074201 (2022)

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    A. M. Vibhakar, D. D. Khalyavin, J. M. Moya, P. Manuel, F. Orlandi, S. Lei, E. Morosan, and A. Bombardi, Phys. Rev. B108, L100404 (2023)

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    L. M. Schoop, M. N. Ali, C. Straßer, A. Topp, A. Varykhalov, D. Marchenko, V. Duppel, S. S. P. Parkin, B. V. Lotsch, and C. R. Ast, Nat. Commun.7, 11696 (2016)

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    Takane, Z

    D. Takane, Z. Wang, S. Souma, K. Nakayama, C. X. Trang, T. Sato, T. Takahashi, and Y. Ando, Phys. Rev. B94, 121108(R) (2016)

    work page 2016

  43. [43]

    D. W. Boukhvalov, R. Edla, A. Cupolillo, V. Fabio, R. Sankar, Y. Zhu, Z. Mao, J. Hu, P. Torelli, G. Chiarello, L. Ottaviano, and A. Politano, Adv. Funct. Mater.29, 1900438 (2019)

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    Chang, S.-Y

    G. Chang, S.-Y. Xu, X. Zhou, S.-M. Huang, B. Singh, B. Wang, I. Belopolski, J. Yin, S. Zhang, A. Bansil, H. Lin, and M. Z. Hasan, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 156401 (2017)

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    Belopolski, K

    I. Belopolski, K. Manna, D. S. Sanchez, G. Chang, B. Ernst, J. Yin, S. S. Zhang, T. Cochran, N. Shumiya, H. Zheng, B. Singh, G. Bian, D. Multer, M. Litskevich, X. Zhou, S.-M. Huang, B. Wang, T.-R. Chang, S.-Y. Xu, A. Bansil, C. Felser, H. Lin, and M. Z. Hasan, Science365, 1278 (2019)

    work page 2019

  46. [46]

    X. P. Yang, Y.-T. Yao, P. Zheng, S. Guan, H. Zhou, T. A. Cochran, C.-M. Lin, J.-X. Yin, X. Zhou, Z.-J. Cheng, Z. Li, T. Shi, M. S. Hossain, S. Chi, I. Belopolski, Y.-X. Jiang, M. Litskevich, G. Xu, Z. Tian, A. Bansil, Z. Yin, S. Jia, T.-R. Chang, and M. Z. Hasan, Nat. Commun.15, 7052 (2024)

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Kitamura, S

    M. Kitamura, S. Souma, A. Honma, D. Wakabayashi, H. Tanaka, A. Toyoshima, K. Amemiya, T. Kawakami, K. Sugawara, K. Nakayama, K. Yoshimatsu, H. Kumigashira, T. Sato, and K. Horiba, Rev. Sci. Instrum.93, 033906 (2022)

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    Giannozzi, S

    P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococcioni, I. Dabo, A. D. Corso, S. Gironcoli, S. Fabris, G. Fratesi, R. Gebauer, U. Gerstmann, C. Gougoussis, A. Kokalj, M. Lazzeri, L. Martin-Samos, N. Marzari, F. Mauri, R. Mazzarello, S. Paolini, A. Pasquarello, L. Paulatto, C. Sbraccia, S. Scandol...

    work page 2009

  49. [49]

    Giannozzi, O

    P. Giannozzi, O. Andreussi, T. Brumme, O. Bunau, M. B. Nardelli, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, M. Cococcioni, N. Colonna, I. Carnimeo, A. D. Corso, S. Gironcoli, P. Delugas, R. A. DiStasio Jr, A. Ferretti, A. Floris, G. Fratesi, G. Fugallo, R. Gebauer, U. 11 Gerstmann, F. Giustino, T. Gorni, J. Jia, M. Kawamura, H.-Y. Ko, A. Kokalj, E. K...

    work page 2017

  50. [50]

    Dal Corso, Comput

    A. Dal Corso, Comput. Mater. Sci.95, 337 (2014)

    work page 2014

  51. [51]

    A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, G. Pizzi, Y.-S. Lee, I. Souza, D. Vanderbilt, and N. Marzari, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 2309 (2014)

    work page 2014

  52. [52]

    Q. S. Wu, S. N. Zhang, H. F. Song, M. Troyer, and A. A. Soluyanov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 224, 405 (2018)

    work page 2018

  53. [53]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi, J. Appl. Crystallogr.44, 1272 (2011). 12 –1.0–0.5 EF 2 nm –1.00.01.0–1.00.01.0 –1.0–0.50.00.51.0 3.02.01.00.0–1.0 –1.00.01.01.00.5 EF –0.5(c)ky(π/a) kx(π/a) ky(π/a) kx(π/a) –1.00.01.01.00.5EF HighLow(d) (e) S1 B1B3 2 nm HighLow S1’ Y1 X MΓΣΣ1ZXΓ kxkykz Bulk band calc. (a)EuGaAl xyz EuGa2Al2 X 2×11×1 Γ M Binding Energy (eV) –1.00.01....

    work page 2011