Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 70 references

Assessing the possible superconductivity in doped perovskite hydride KMgH$_3$: Effects of lattice anharmonicity and spin fluctuations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper predicts that spin fluctuations cap hole-doped KMgH3's superconductivity at 7.6 K, far below the phonon-only ceiling of 38.7 K.

desk verdict Solid SCDFT study of hole-doped KMgH3; the spin-fluctuation suppression claim is plausible but rests on an unvalidated ALDA/RPA kernel, so the quantitative Tc needs a sensitivity check before it is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09966 v1 pith:W2DJRZEN submitted 2024-11-15 cond-mat.supr-con

Shaocong Lu , Ryosuke Akashi , Mitsuaki Kawamura , Shinji Tsuneyuki This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords perovskitehydrideKMgH3superconductivityspinfluctuationslatticeanharmonicitydensityfunctionaltheoryforsuperconductorsholedopinghydrogen1sbands
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

The paper asks how high the superconducting transition temperature of hole-doped perovskite hydride KMgH3 can realistically be, and answers: only about 7.6 K once spin fluctuations are included. This matters because KMgH3's valence bands are nearly pure hydrogen 1s states, the kind of electronic structure often assumed to give strong coupling to hydrogen vibrations and therefore high Tc. The authors find that the same localized orbitals produce a strong spin-fluctuation interaction that opposes the phonon-mediated pairing, cutting Tc from 38.7 K to 4.4 K at the most favorable anharmonic-stabilized point. They also show that lattice anharmonicity both stabilizes the cubic phase near its dynamical stability edge and slightly weakens the electron-phonon coupling, so the net Tc is set by a competition among three effects.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a three-stage first-principles chain. Harmonic phonon frequencies and electron-phonon matrix elements come from density functional perturbation theory; the self-consistent phonon method then renormalizes those frequencies to include lattice anharmonicity; and the superconducting $T_c$ is computed in the density functional theory for superconductors (SCDFT), with the spin-fluctuation-mediated electron-electron interaction evaluated in the adiabatic local density approximation with a random phase approximation (RPA) spin susceptibility. The central object is the spin-fluctuation parameter $\mu_s$, the Fermi-surface average of that interaction. It competes directly with the electron-phonon coupling $\lambda$, and the paper's argument is that in KMgH3 the localized H-1s orbitals make $\mu_s$ comparable to or larger than $\lambda$, which is what collapses $T_c$.

What would settle it

Compute $\mu_s$ for the $a = 6.26$ a.u., $n = 0.5$ system without the adiabatic approximation or with a non-RPA spin susceptibility, or synthesize doped KMgH3 and measure $T_c$ directly; if $\mu_s$ comes out well below the phonon-side $\lambda \approx 0.72$, or if superconductivity appears above 7.6 K, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that hole-doped KMgH3 is only a weak superconductor, with a parameter-free SCDFT $T_c$ of at most 7.6 K, because spin fluctuations strongly suppress the phonon-mediated pairing. At the anharmonic-stabilized lattice parameter $a = 6.26$ a.u. and doping $n = 0.5$, including spin fluctuations drops $T_c$ from 38.7 K to 4.4 K. The paper further claims that the spin-fluctuation strength $\mu_s$ in hydrides whose Fermi-level bands are isolated hydrogen 1s states follows an approximately universal curve against the density of states, $\mu_s \approx s_1 N(\epsilon_F)^2/(1-s_2 N(\epsilon_F))$, with $\mu_s$ reaching 1.85 in doped KMgH3; when $\mu_s$ approaches or exceeds the electron-phonon coupling $\lambda$, $T_c$ collapses. Finally, the paper establishes that anharmonicity stabilizes the cubic phase where harmonic phonons show imaginary modes, and that those anharmonic-stabilized points show enhanced $T_c$ relative to neighboring stable systems.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative collapse of $T_c$ rests on the adiabatic local density approximation with an RPA spin susceptibility and exchange-correlation kernel used to compute $\mu_s$; if that magnetic-channel approximation overestimates the spin-fluctuation interaction, the predicted drop to 4.4 K and the 7.6 K ceiling would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Phonon-only SCDFT and McMillan-Allen-Dynes estimates for H-1s-dominated hydrides should be read as upper bounds, since spin fluctuations act against pairing in these systems.
  • Anharmonic-stabilized phases at the edge of dynamical stability are viable superconducting candidates; in this material they host the highest $T_c$ points.
  • High-throughput searches that screen hydrides by density of states and electron-phonon coupling alone will tend to over-rank H-1s systems, because the same $N(\epsilon_F)$ that raises $\lambda$ also raises $\mu_s$.
  • Hole-doped KMgH3 itself is predicted to be a low-temperature superconductor with $T_c$ no higher than 7.6 K, a concrete target for synthesis and measurement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable corollary the authors leave implicit: because $\mu_s$ grows roughly as $N(\epsilon_F)^2$ while $\lambda$ grows roughly linearly, pushing doping or pressure to increase the DOS may be self-defeating for $T_c$ once spin fluctuations become comparable to the phonon coupling.
  • The contrast between delocalized electrons in H3S, where spin fluctuations cost little, and localized H-1s electrons in KMgH3 suggests electron localization (for example, an ELF-based descriptor) could predict which hydrides suffer strong spin-fluctuation suppression.
  • The anharmonic-stabilized high-$T_c$ points suggest a synthesis strategy: instead of the fully harmonic ground state, prepare metastable cubic phases near the dynamical stability edge, where anharmonicity both stabilizes the structure and leaves relatively high $T_c$.
  • The mechanism, if general, would extend beyond hydrogen: any metal with isolated, localized $s$-band states at the Fermi level should show similar spin-fluctuation suppression of phonon-mediated superconductivity.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript performs a first-principles assessment of possible superconductivity in uniformly hole-doped perovskite KMgH3, scanning doping levels (n = 0.1–0.5 holes per unit cell) and lattice parameters corresponding to pressures from ambient to 100 GPa. The authors combine density functional perturbation theory with self-consistent phonon (SCPH) renormalization to include lattice anharmonicity, and they compute the superconducting transition temperature with density functional theory for superconductors (SCDFT), adding a spin-fluctuation (SF) pairing-breaking interaction evaluated in the adiabatic local density approximation with an RPA spin susceptibility. The main results are that the strongest electron-phonon coupling (λ = 0.72) occurs at the anharmonic-stabilized point a = 6.26 a.u., n = 0.5; SCDFT without SF predicts Tc = 38.7 K there, while adding the SF interaction reduces it to 4.4 K, with a global maximum of 7.6 K across the phase diagram. The authors also compute an SF strength parameter μs for several other hydrides with isolated H-1s bands at the Fermi level, and fit a Stoner-like correlation μs ≈ s1 N(EF)^2/(1 − s2 N(EF)), concluding that hydrides with isolated H-1s conduction bands will generally suffer strong SF suppression of phonon-mediated pairing.

Significance. This paper offers a rare quantitative look at spin-fluctuation effects in hydride superconductors, a channel usually neglected in phonon-only predictions. If the results hold, the falsifiable 'dilemma' it articulates—hydrides whose Fermi level sits in isolated H-1s bands combine a large N(EF) with large SF pairing-breaking, making phonon-only Tc estimates upper bounds—would be a useful guide for hydride screening efforts. The workflow deserves credit: the Tc values come from parameter-free SCDFT with no empirical Coulomb pseudopotential; anharmonicity is treated by SCPH with sixth-order force constants and a reported fitting error of 0.925%; the calculations use established public codes (QE, ALAMODE, superconducting toolkit) and are reproducible in practice; and the qualitative suppression trend is internally consistent across the doping–pressure diagram, corroborated by the ordered K2LiMgH6 test case (Tc with SF = 0.7 K) and consistent with the small SF reduction reported for Im-3m H3S.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II (Eqs. 11-13); Section III.C (Fig. 6(d)); Section III.D] The central quantitative claim—that spin fluctuations reduce the SCDFT Tc from 38.7 K to 4.4 K at the anharmonic-stabilized point a = 6.26 a.u., n = 0.5, and cap the global maximum at 7.6 K—rests entirely on the adiabatic-LDA plus RPA spin-fluctuation interaction defined by Eqs. (11)-(13), and the manuscript offers no sensitivity analysis for this channel. Section III.D reports μs up to 1.85 (Fig. 8) while λ = 0.72 (Fig. 6(a)) at the same point; through the Stoner-like denominator of Eq. (15), this puts the system in a near-suppression regime where a modest overestimate of the exchange-correlation kernel I_XC would change the qualitative conclusion, and a modest underestimate would restore a much higher Tc. I request three checks that are feasible within the present methodology: (i) a kernel-sensitivity test, e.g., Tc recomputed with I_XC scaled by ±10-20% or with a different approximation for the spin susceptibility Π; (ii) a report of the uniform (q → 0) Stoner enhancement χ/χ0 at (6.26, 0.5) as an independent indication of whether the denominator of Eq. (15) is indeed near-divergent; and (iii) a k-mesh convergence statement for μs and N(EF), since the exchange integrals are evaluated on a 4 × 4 × 4 mesh (Supplement D) while N(EF) is the sensitive denominator variable.
  2. [Section II (jellium doping model); Section III.B] The doping is modeled by uniform electron removal with a compensating jellium background, and Section III.B assumes rather than demonstrates the thermodynamic stability of the doped phases ('We hence assume that it can stay thermodynamically stable with small doping'); only phonon dynamical stability is computed. Because λ, μs, and Tc all follow from the Fermi surface created by the doping, the headline statement about possible superconductivity in doped KMgH3 is strictly a prediction for the jellium model unless a connection to a realistic dopant is established. I request, for at least the optimal point (6.26, 0.5), one explicit chemical-doping realization—e.g., Ca or Na substitution on K, or the ordered K2LiMgH6-type structure—with its formation enthalpy relative to plausible decomposition products and its N(EF), μs, and Tc compared with the jellium results. The K2LiMgH6 supercell calculation in the Supplement moves in the right direction, but it is not tied back to the phase diagram or the stability analysis.
  3. [Section III.D (Eqs. 14-15, Fig. 8); Supplement Table S-2] The general 'dilemma'—hydrides with isolated H-1s bands at the Fermi level generically suffer strong SF suppression—is supported only by a two-parameter fit of Eq. (15) to a small set of computed points: the KMgH3 series plus the additional compounds listed in Table S-2. The fitted constants s1 and s2 are not reported, and since all points are produced by the same ALDA/RPA kernel, the fit is a consistency check of the Stoner form rather than independent evidence of universality. I request the fitted values of s1 and s2 with the goodness of fit, and an out-of-sample test—the μs predicted from Eq. (15) for a hydride not used in the fit, compared with the directly computed value—before the dilemma is stated as a general conclusion. This does not affect the KMgH3-specific Tc values, which are obtained directly from Eqs. (11)-(13), but it is the basis for the paper's broader message.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III.C (last paragraph); Acknowledgments] Typos should be corrected: 'discoviering' and 'effefct' in the last paragraph of Section III.C, and 'disccusions' and 'Institude' in the Acknowledgments.
  2. [Supplement, Fig. S-2 caption] The caption 'The red blue lines are phonon frequencies calculated within harmonic approximation. The blue lines are anharmonic phonon frequencies' is garbled and should clearly distinguish the harmonic (red) and SCPH (blue) dispersions.
  3. [Section II (Eq. 1)] Equation (1) should be typeset as Tc = ΘD exp[−1/(N(εF) V)]; the exponent as printed is ambiguous.
  4. [Section II (SCPH renormalization of alpha2F)] It is not stated how the SCPH-renormalized Eliashberg function is constructed—whether only the phonon frequencies are shifted while the harmonic matrix elements are kept, or whether the eigenvectors and electron-phonon matrix elements are also renormalized; a sentence clarifying this would be useful, particularly for the soft modes near the stability edge.
  5. [Section II and Section III.B (lattice parameters)] The lattice parameters used for the doped compounds are those of the undoped parent compound at the corresponding pressures, so volume relaxation upon doping is neglected; stating this explicitly would help readers interpret the phase diagram.
  6. [Section III.C (last paragraph) and Abstract] The claim that Tc is enhanced in all systems stabilized by anharmonic effects is confounded with the doping trend, because the anharmonic-stabilized points are also the highest-doping points where N(EF) is largest; a sentence acknowledging that this comparison cannot fully separate the anharmonic-stabilization effect from the doping-induced increase in N(EF) would make the attribution precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Tc predictions are parameter-free SCDFT results and the only fitted expression (Eq. 15) is a post-hoc description of computed mu_s values, not an input to the superconductivity calculation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Phonon frequencies and electron-phonon couplings are obtained from DFPT and SCPH with fitted interatomic force constants (reported fitting error 0.925%), and Tc is predicted with SCDFT 'without empirical parameters' (Section II). Spin-fluctuation effects are computed from Eqs. (11)-(13) using an ALDA/RPA kernel taken from the cited method literature (Refs. [38,39,45,46]); no parameter of that kernel is adjusted to reproduce a target Tc. The striking suppression at the anharmonic-stabilized point (38.7 K to 4.4 K, Section III.C) is a computed difference between two SCDFT runs, not a restatement of an input. The only fitted relation, Eq. (15), is used to summarize the computed mu_s versus N(E_F) trend; the paper explicitly labels it an approximation and does not feed it back into the Tc calculation. Self-citations to Refs. [38, 39] and [46] are methodological references for the SF-inclusive SCDFT framework, not load-bearing derivations of the present numerical result. The ALDA/RPA treatment of spin fluctuations is a physical approximation that could be questioned on accuracy grounds, but that is a correctness/modeling risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central Tc values are produced by a parameter-free SCDFT calculation, which keeps the main claim relatively clean. Two fitted constants enter only in the secondary correlation Eq. (15). The larger set of assumptions concerns the adequacy of the adiabatic-LDA/RPA spin-fluctuation interaction, the jellium model for doping, and the restriction to the cubic perovskite structure; these are domain assumptions rather than fitted parameters.

free parameters (2)
  • mu* (Coulomb pseudopotential) = 0.1
    Used in the McMillan-Allen-Dynes estimate (Eq. 2); an empirical input, though the paper also performs SCDFT without it.
  • s1, s2 (spin-fluctuation correlation constants) = Not quoted; fitted curve in Fig. 8
    Constants in Eq. (15) fitted to the computed mu_s versus N(E_F) points; they encode the claimed monotonic relation rather than deriving it.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Migdal approximation and Eliashberg theory describe superconductivity in this doped hydride.
    Invoked in Section II, Eqs. (2)-(10), for the phonon-mediated pairing channel.
  • domain assumption The adiabatic local density approximation for the spin-fluctuation interaction (Eqs. 11-13) gives quantitatively reliable mu_s.
    Section II states the SF interaction was calculated within the adiabatic local density approximation; this is the main load-bearing assumption for the central finding.
  • ad hoc to paper Uniform hole doping with a compensating jellium background approximates real chemical doping.
    Section II: 'The uniform hole doping was realized by subtracting electrons from unit cells, and adding a compensating jellium background.'
  • domain assumption The cubic perovskite phase remains the relevant structure under hole doping.
    Section III.B examines dynamical stability of the cubic phase only; no competing structural search is performed for doped compositions.
  • domain assumption Small doping preserves thermodynamic stability because pristine KMgH3 is stable.
    Section III.B: 'We hence assume that it can stay thermodynamically stable with small doping, especially at higher pressures.'
  • ad hoc to paper Equation (14) assumes the spin-spin interaction is constant over the Fermi surface.
    Section III.D: 'If we assume that the spin-spin interaction is constant...' leading to the fitted Eq. (15).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Assessing the possible superconductivity in doped perovskite hydride KMgH$_3$: Effects of lattice anharmonicity and spin fluctuations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W2DJRZEN

@misc{pith2026241109966,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Assessing the possible superconductivity in doped perovskite hydride KMgH$_3$: Effects of lattice anharmonicity and spin fluctuations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W2DJRZEN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09966}
}
abstract

The superconducting properties of uniformly hole-doped perovskite hydride KMgH$_3$ with varying doping concentration and lattice parameter corresponding to different pressures were investigated from first principles. The superconducting transition temperature ($T_{\mathrm{c}}$) was predicted from the density functional theory for superconductors (SCDFT), where the effects of lattice anharmonicity and spin-fluctuation were considered and examined. Although lattice anharmonicity tends to suppress superconductivity around the edge of dynamical stability, where the phase is stabilized due to anharmonic effects, $T_{\mathrm{c}}$ is enhanced. In the hole-doped \ce{KMgH3}, substantial spin-fluctuation (SF) effects were discovered, which counters the phonon-mediated pairing and decreases $T_{\mathrm{c}}$. Such anomalously strong SF is evaluated for similar hydrides, where the hydrogen 1-$s$ bands are isolated at the Fermi level, and its correlation with the electronics density of states was explored.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09966 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Crystal structure of perovskite hydride KMgH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Electronic bands structure and DOS of KMgH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Calculated enthalpy difference (relative to KH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Phonon dispersions of uniformly hole-doped KMgH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The Eliashberg spectral functions when lattice con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Lattice constant and doping concentration dependence of (a) EPC parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Electron localization function of (a) KMgH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. SF strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [62]

    Koshoji, M

    R. Koshoji, M. Fukuda, M. Kawamura, and T. Ozaki, Phys. Rev. Mater. 6, 114802 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    V. L. Ginzburg, J. Stat. Phys. 1, 3 (1969)

    work page 1969

  3. [2]

    N. W. Ashcroft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21, 1748 (1968)

    1968

  4. [3]

    N. W. Ashcroft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 187002 (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [4]

    A. P. Drozdov, M. I. Eremets, I. A. Troyan, V. Kseno- fontov, and S. I. Shylin, Nature 525, 73–76 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    Somayazulu, M

    M. Somayazulu, M. Ahart, A. K. Mishra, Z. M. Geballe, M. Baldini, Y. Meng, V. V. Struzhkin, and R. J. Hemley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 027001 (2019)

    2019

  7. [6]

    A. P. Drozdov, P. P. Kong, V. S. Minkov, S. P. Besedin, M. A. Kuzovnikov, S. Mozaffari, L. Balicas, F. F. Bal- akirev, D. E. Graf, V. B. Prakapenka, E. Greenberg, D. A. Knyazev, M. Tkacz, and M. I. Eremets, Nature 569, 528–531 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    I. A. Troyan, D. V. Semenok, A. G. Kvashnin, A. V. Sadakov, O. A. Sobolevskiy, V. M. Pudalov, A. G. Ivanova, V. B. Prakapenka, S. Chariton,et al., Advanced Materials 33 (2021), 10.1002/adma.202006832

    doi:10.1002/adma.202006832 2021

Show all 70 references
  1. [8]

    P. Kong, V. S. Minkov, M. A. Kuzovnikov, A. P. Droz- dov, S. P. Besedin, S. Mozaffari, L. Balicas, F. F. Bal- akirev, V. B. Prakapenka, S. Chariton, D. A. Knyazev, E. Greenberg, and M. I. Eremets, Nature Communica- tions 12 (2021), 10.1038/s41467-021-25372-2

    2021 doi

  2. [9]

    Y. He, J. Lu, X. Wang, and J. Shi, Phys. Rev. B 108, 054515 (2023)

    2023

  3. [10]

    Sanna, T

    A. Sanna, T. F. T. Cerqueira, Y. Fang, I. Errea, A. Lud- wig, and M. A. L. Marques, npj Computational Materi- als 10 (2024), 10.1038/s41524-024-01214-9

    2024 doi

  4. [11]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957)

    1957

  5. [12]

    T. F. T. Cerqueira, A. Sanna, and M. A. L. Marques, Advanced Materials (2023), 10.1002/adma.202307085

    2023 doi

  6. [13]

    Choudhary and K

    K. Choudhary and K. Garrity, npj Computational Ma- terials 8 (2022), 10.1038/s41524-022-00933-1

    2022 doi

  7. [14]

    A. M. Shipley, M. J. Hutcheon, R. J. Needs, and C. J. Pickard, Phys. Rev. B 104, 054501 (2021)

    2021

  8. [15]

    Wines, K

    D. Wines, K. Choudhary, A. J. Biacchi, K. F. Garrity, and F. Tavazza, Nano Letters 23, 969–978 (2023)

    2023

  9. [16]

    Yagyu, M

    H. Yagyu, M. Kato, T. Noji, and Y. Koike, Physics Procedia 45, 109 (2013), proceedings of the 25th Inter- national Symposium on Superconductivity (ISS2012)

    2013

  10. [17]

    T. F. T. Cerqueira, A. Sanna, and M. A. L. Marques, Advanced Materials 36, 2307085 (2024)

    2024

  11. [18]

    Schumacher and A

    R. Schumacher and A. Weiss, Journal of the Less Com- mon Metals 163, 179 (1990)

    1990

  12. [19]

    M. Ghim, N. Sato, R. Akashi, S. Jhi, and S. Tsuneyuki, Phys. Rev. Mater. 5, 054802 (2021)

    2021

  13. [20]

    Y. Goto, C. Tassel, Y. Noda, O. Hernandez, C. J. Pickard, M. A. Green, H. Sakaebe, N. Taguchi, Y. Uchi- moto, Y. Kobayashi, and H. Kageyama, Inorganic Chemistry 56, 4840–4845 (2017)

    2017

  14. [21]

    F. D. Romero, A. Leach, J. S. M¨ oller, F. Foronda, S. J. Blundell, and M. A. Hayward, Angewandte Chemie 126, 7686–7689 (2014)

    2014

  15. [22]

    Tassel, Y

    C. Tassel, Y. Goto, Y. Kuno, J. Hester, M. Green, Y. Kobayashi, and H. Kageyama, Angewandte Chemie International Edition 53, 10377–10380 (2014)

    2014

  16. [23]

    Sasahara, R

    Y. Sasahara, R. Terada, H. Ubukata, M. Asahi, D. Kato, T. Tsumori, M. Namba, Z. Wei, C. Tassel, and H. Kageyama, Journal of the American Chemical Society 146, 11694–11701 (2024)

    2024

  17. [24]

    Nasu, Phys

    K. Nasu, Phys. Rev. B 44, 7625 (1991)

    1991

  18. [25]

    C. C. Yu and P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. B 29, 6165 (1984)

    1984

  19. [26]

    W. Sano, T. Koretsune, T. Tadano, R. Akashi, and R. Arita, Phys. Rev. B 93, 094525 (2016)

    2016

  20. [27]

    Errea, M

    I. Errea, M. Calandra, and F. Mauri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 177002 (2013)

    2013

  21. [28]

    Errea, M

    I. Errea, M. Calandra, C. J. Pickard, J. Nelson, R. J. Needs, Y. Li, H. Liu, Y. Zhang, Y. Ma, and F. Mauri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 157004 (2015)

    2015

  22. [29]

    P. Hou, F. Belli, R. Bianco, and I. Errea, Phys. Rev. B 103, 134305 (2021)

    2021

  23. [30]

    B. N. Ganguly, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Hadrons and nu- clei 265, 433–439 (1973)

    1973

  24. [31]

    J. M. Rowe, J. J. Rush, J. E. Schirber, and J. M. Mintz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2955 (1986)

    1986

  25. [32]

    B. M. Klein and R. E. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B 45, 12405 (1992)

    1992

  26. [33]

    Errea, F

    I. Errea, F. Belli, L. Monacelli, A. Sanna, T. Koretsune, T. Tadano, R. Bianco, M. Calandra, R. Arita, F. Mauri, and J. A. Flores-Livas, Nature 578, 66–69 (2020)

    2020

  27. [34]

    Errea, M

    I. Errea, M. Calandra, C. J. Pickard, J. R. Nelson, R. J. Needs, Y. Li, H. Liu, Y. Zhang, Y. Ma, and F. Mauri, Nature 532, 81–84 (2016)

    2016

  28. [35]

    N. F. Berk and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 433 (1966)

    1966

  29. [36]

    M. A. Jensen and K. Andres, Journal of Applied Physics 38, 1255 (1967)

    1967

  30. [37]

    Rietschel and H

    H. Rietschel and H. Winter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1256 (1979)

    1979

  31. [38]

    Kawamura, Y

    M. Kawamura, Y. Hizume, and T. Ozaki, Phys. Rev. B 101, 134511 (2020)

    2020

  32. [39]

    Tsutsumi, Y

    K. Tsutsumi, Y. Hizume, M. Kawamura, R. Akashi, and S. Tsuneyuki, Phys. Rev. B 102, 214515 (2020)

    2020

  33. [40]

    G. M. Eliashberg, Soviet Physics JETP 11, 696 (1960)

    1960

  34. [41]

    A. B. Migdal, Soviet Physics JETP 7, 996 (1958)

    1958

  35. [42]

    W. L. McMillan, Phys. Rev. 167, 331 (1968)

    1968

  36. [43]

    P. B. Allen and R. C. Dynes, Phys. Rev. B12, 905 (1975)

    1975

  37. [44]

    Dynes, Solid State Communications 10, 615 (1972)

    R. Dynes, Solid State Communications 10, 615 (1972)

    1972

  38. [45]

    Petersilka, U

    M. Petersilka, U. J. Gossmann, and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1212 (1996)

    1996

  39. [46]

    Essenberger, A

    F. Essenberger, A. Sanna, A. Linscheid, F. Tandetzky, G. Profeta, P. Cudazzo, and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. B 90, 214504 (2014)

    2014

  40. [47]

    Giannozzi, S

    P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococ- cioni, I. Dabo, et al., Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 21, 395502 (2009)

    2009

  41. [48]

    Giannozzi, O

    P. Giannozzi, O. Andreussi, T. Brumme, O. Bunau, M. B. Nardelli, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, et al., Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 29, 465901 (2017)

    2017

  42. [49]

    Vanderbilt, Phys

    D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B 41, 7892 (1990)

    1990

  43. [50]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  44. [51]

    Kawamura, Y

    M. Kawamura, Y. Gohda, and S. Tsuneyuki, Phys. Rev. B 89, 094515 (2014)

    2014

  45. [52]

    Tadano and S

    T. Tadano and S. Tsuneyuki, Phys. Rev. B 92, 054301 (2015)

    2015

  46. [53]

    Tadano, Y

    T. Tadano, Y. Gohda, and S. Tsuneyuki, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 26, 225402 (2014). 9

    2014

  47. [54]

    L¨ uders, M

    M. L¨ uders, M. A. L. Marques, N. N. Lathiotakis, A. Floris, G. Profeta, L. Fast, A. Continenza, S. Mas- sidda, and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. B 72, 024545 (2005)

    2005

  48. [55]

    Gell-Mann and K

    M. Gell-Mann and K. A. Brueckner, Phys. Rev. 106, 364 (1957)

    1957

  49. [56]

    Takada, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 45, 786–794 (1978)

    Y. Takada, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 45, 786–794 (1978)

    1978

  50. [57]

    Akashi and R

    R. Akashi and R. Arita, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 057006 (2013)

    2013

  51. [58]

    Sanna, C

    A. Sanna, C. Pellegrini, and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 057001 (2020)

    2020

  52. [59]

    Bergmann and D

    G. Bergmann and D. Rainer, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik263, 59–68 (1973)

    1973

  53. [60]

    Tanaka, J

    K. Tanaka, J. S. Tse, and H. Liu, Phys. Rev. B 96, 100502 (2017)

    2017

  54. [61]

    Akashi, R

    R. Akashi, R. Arita, C. Zhang, K. Tanaka, and J. S. Tse, Phys. Rev. B 103, 134517 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi, Journal of Applied Crystallog- raphy 44, 1272 (2011)

    2011

  56. [64]

    See Supplemental Material at URL-will-be-inserted-by- publisher for more detailed information, which also in- cludes Refs. [65–70]

  57. [65]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Computational Materials Science 6, 15 (1996)

    1996

  58. [66]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B 47, 558 (1993)

    1993

  59. [67]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B 59, 1758 (1999)

    1999

  60. [68]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  61. [69]

    van Setten, M

    M. van Setten, M. Giantomassi, E. Bousquet, M. Ver- straete, D. Hamann, X. Gonze, and G.-M. Rignanese, Computer Physics Communications 226, 39 (2018)

    2018

  62. [70]

    #-& 6/45

    D. R. Hamann, Phys. Rev. B 88, 085117 (2013). 1 Supplementary Materials A. Doped KMgH 3 UNSTABLE UNSTABLE UNSTABLE FIG. S-1. The Eliashberg spectral functions α2F (ω) and the electron-phonon coupling parameter λ. The red lines indicate the α2F (ω) , and the blue lines are inte...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.