Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Light-induced renormalization of the band structure of chiral tellurium

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Photoexcited tellurium's band gap narrows by 80 meV, and coherent A1g and E'LO phonons make the valence and conduction band edges oscillate in phase by about 15 meV, an effect traced to phonon-induced modulation of the effective Hubbard U.

desk verdict Solid band-resolved trARPES observation of coherent phonon-driven band-edge oscillations in Te, but the 'exclusively Hubbard-U' mechanism claim is not backed by a fixed-U control. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13954 v1 pith:5ZDZW3XD submitted 2024-11-21 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-el

G. Gatti , N. Tancogne-Dejean , H. Hübener , U. De Giovannini , J. Dai , S. Polishchuk , Ph. Bugnon , F. Frassetto
show 6 more authors
L. Poletto M. Chergui M. Grioni A. Rubio M. Puppin A. Crepaldi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el
keywords chiraltelluriumband-gaprenormalizationcoherentphononsHubbardUTDDFT+UtrARPESWeylpointsPeierlsdistortion
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

This paper reports that a 1.6 eV laser pulse renormalizes the electronic band structure of chiral tellurium, narrowing the band gap by about 80 meV and setting off coherent lattice vibrations that make the valence and conduction band edges oscillate in phase with an amplitude near 15 meV. Two phonon modes participate: the symmetric A1g breathing mode at 3.46 THz, excited displacively, and the chiral-symmetry-breaking E'LO mode at 2.97 THz. By combining time- and angle-resolved photoemission with TDDFT+U simulations, the authors identify the microscopic origin of the in-phase oscillations: the moving ions adiabatically modulate the effective Hubbard U of the Te 5p orbitals, shifting both band edges together. The result matters because tellurium's chirality and Weyl points are tied to its Peierls-distorted lattice, so light-driven phonons offer a route to control its topological properties.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective Hubbard U, a local Coulomb-repulsion parameter applied to the Te 5p orbitals, evaluated on the fly along a time-dependent DFT+U Ehrenfest trajectory. At equilibrium the calculated value is Ueff = 3.4 eV, which yields a band gap of 0.355 eV. The argument works by extracting the instantaneous U(tau) from the ionic positions at each time delay, then recomputing the band structure with static DFT+U at that U(tau); the in-phase motion of both band edges follows from the monotonic dependence of the gap on U. The second ingredient is the displacive excitation of the A1g breathing mode, which expands the helix radius and thereby changes the local Coulomb repulsion, providing the physical path from photoexcitation to gap modulation.

What would settle it

Run a TDDFT+U Ehrenfest trajectory for the same pump fluence with the Hubbard U held fixed at its equilibrium value of 3.4 eV while allowing the same ionic motion, then compare the band-edge oscillations: if the in-phase ~15 meV oscillations persist with fixed U, the claim that they come from phonon-induced U modulation is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Upon near-infrared excitation below the critical fluence for a topological transition, bulk tellurium exhibits a transient band-gap renormalization of about 80 meV, with the valence band maximum shifting upward by a comparable amount while the conduction band minimum follows a faster relaxation. Superimposed on this decay are coherent oscillations of the two band edges with maximum amplitude of about 15 meV, in phase with each other, at 3.46 THz and 2.97 THz. The authors assign the higher frequency to the A1g breathing mode generated by displacive excitation of coherent phonons and the lower one to the longitudinal optical E'LO mode, which breaks the C31 screw symmetry that pins Weyl points at the H point. Ab initio TDDFT+U Ehrenfest dynamics reproduce the displacive excitation of the A1g mode, and static DFT+U calculations performed with the instantaneous Hubbard U(tau) extracted from the trajectory yield in-phase band-edge oscillations, leading the authors to conclude that the oscillations arise exclusively from adiabatic modulation of the effective Hubbard U by the ionic motion. The theory does not reproduce the initial 80 meV band-gap renormalization, which the authors attribute to electronic contributions outside the structural response.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the band-edge oscillations are exclusively due to adiabatic modulation of the Hubbard U by ionic motion assumes that the time-dependent U(tau) extracted from the TDDFT+U trajectory is a well-defined physical quantity and that static DFT+U(tau) fully captures the gap response at each instant; the paper provides no fixed-U control to rule out other contributions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Coherent A1g phonons act as an ultrafast, in-phase tuning knob for both the valence and conduction band edges in tellurium, with an amplitude near 15 meV at the experimental fluence.
  • Excitation of the E'LO mode breaks the C31 screw symmetry that pins Weyl points at H, providing a light-based route to move Weyl points and alter the material's topology before the gap closes.
  • Because the calculated ionic contribution alone (about 20 meV and 100 meV for VBM and CBM) does not close the gap at 1.2 mJ/cm2, reaching a topological transition will require resonant mid-infrared or terahertz pumping to couple more strongly to specific lattice distortions.
  • The in-phase band-edge shifts explain transient optical transitions near the band edges observed in tellurium nanosheets as a splitting of the Weyl point at the conduction band minimum, an alternative to the inverse-piezoelectric strain interpretation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If phonon-induced U modulation is the dominant mechanism, the in-phase oscillation amplitude should scale linearly with the A1g displacement; a fluence series that separates the A1g amplitude from the electronic background would test this directly, and also expose why the theoretical CBM amplitude exceeds the measured one by a factor of roughly seven.
  • The same TDDFT+U machinery could be applied to other Peierls-distorted chiral crystals, such as selenium or certain transition-metal dichalcogenides, to predict whether coherent A1g modes generically renormalize their gaps through U modulation.
  • The photo-Dember route to E'LO excitation depends on pump polarization and surface termination; tuning these could selectively enhance the symmetry-breaking amplitude, making the E'LO amplitude itself a control parameter for Weyl-point motion.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a trARPES study of bulk trigonal tellurium under near-infrared pumping. The authors observe an 80 meV band-gap renormalization and coherent oscillations of the valence and conduction band edges with ~15 meV amplitude at two frequencies: 3.46 THz (A1g) and 2.97 THz (E'LO). They compare the measured band-edge dynamics with TDDFT+U Ehrenfest simulations, which reproduce the in-phase character of the VBM and CBM oscillations and the A1g frequency, and they attribute the oscillations to an adiabatic modulation of the effective Hubbard U parameter caused by the ionic motion. The paper also proposes that excitation of the E'LO mode breaks the C31 symmetry and could move Weyl points away from the H point, offering an alternative explanation for recent time-resolved optical experiments on Te nanosheets.

Significance. If the microscopic attribution holds, the paper provides a concrete mechanism for coherent-phonon-driven band-structure modulation in a chiral Peierls semiconductor and connects it to proposals for light-induced topological phase transitions. The experimental analysis is careful: band-edge positions are extracted with stated error bars, the Fourier analysis separates the two phonon modes, and the in-phase oscillation of the two band edges is clearly established. The theory side is also strengthened by the fact that Ueff = 3.4 eV is obtained from a linear-response scheme rather than fitted to the gap, and the resulting equilibrium gap (0.355 eV) is close to the experimental value (0.33 eV). The authors are candid that the theory does not capture the initial 80 meV BGR, which is a structural-only calculation. The proposed E'LO-mediated Weyl-point manipulation is speculative but testable and is appropriately framed as a suggestion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Fig. 3(c) discussion] The claim that the band-gap oscillations are 'exclusively results of the adiabatic modulations of U due to the ionic motion' is not established because no counterfactual with a fixed U is presented. Comparing U(τ) extracted from the TDDFT+U trajectory with the self-consistent U(τ) obtained in static DFT+U(τ) calculations checks the internal consistency of the +U scheme, but it does not test whether the gap modulation would survive if U were held at its equilibrium value (3.4 eV) along the same A1g trajectory. In a Peierls-distorted semiconductor, the breathing mode directly changes hopping integrals and one-electron overlaps, so the gap could be modulated even at constant U; the computed U(τ) modulation could be a correlated by-product rather than the causal channel. A static DFT calculation with fixed equilibrium U along the same ionic trajectory is needed to support the exclusivity statement.
  2. [Fig. 3(c) compared with Fig. 3(b)] The theoretical CBM oscillation amplitude (~100 meV, from the scale of Fig. 3(c)) is almost an order of magnitude larger than the measured value (~15 meV, Fig. 3(b)), and the theoretical VBM amplitude (~20 meV) also exceeds the measured one. Since the central claim is about the origin of the measured oscillations, this quantitative mismatch should be addressed explicitly. Possible causes include the finite integration window and energy resolution of the trARPES detectection, the calibrated phonon amplitude in the Ehrenfest run, or non-adiabatic electronic screening effects. Without a quantitative discussion, the theory provides only qualitative support for the attribution.
  3. [Abstract and Conclusions] The abstract and conclusions attribute the in-phase band-edge oscillations to phonon-induced modulation of the Hubbard U term, but the TDDFT+U calculation reproduces only the A1g mode, while the experimental oscillation analysis identifies two modes (A1g and E'LO) with comparable contributions to the band-edge modulation. The microscopic attribution is therefore directly supported only for the A1g component; the E'LO component is not addressed by the presented calculation. The manuscript should either explicitly restrict the attribution to the A1g mode or include a calculation that captures the E'LO contribution (e.g., a slab geometry that can describe the photo-Dember effect), or, if such a calculation is beyond the current scope, soften the general claim accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2(c) caption] The caption or the figure appears to contain leftover text from a fitting program ('Source: kData_BE_0p2Am0p3eVFitting Model: ...'); this should be removed before publication.
  2. [References] Reference [26] is a placeholder with 'URL XXX' and should be completed with the full citation and supplemental material URL.
  3. [Section 2, after Fig. 2(c)] The sentence 'As a results, the oscillation of the ions...' contains a grammatical error ('results' should be 'result').
  4. [Section 3, Fig. 3] The axis labels 'Time delay / A1,exp' and 'Time delay / A1,th' in Fig. 3 should be defined in the caption, indicating that these are the experimental and theoretical periods of the A1g mode, respectively.
  5. [Fig. 3(c) discussion] The phrase 'exclusively results of the adiabatic modulations' should be rephrased as 'exclusively the result of the adiabatic modulations' or 'exclusively due to the adiabatic modulations' for grammatical correctness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: band-edge oscillations are genuine first-principles predictions, though the 'exclusively due to U' attribution lacks a fixed-U control.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The equilibrium Ueff = 3.4 eV is obtained by a linear-response calculation, not by fitting to the measured gap; the resulting gap of 0.355 eV is an independent check against the experimental 0.33 eV. The time-dependent U(τ) is extracted from the TDDFT+U Ehrenfest trajectory, and static DFT+U(τ) calculations then produce band-edge shifts as an output; the theoretical CBM oscillation amplitude (~100 meV) is far above the measured ~15 meV, so the prediction is not adjusted to the target data. The in-phase VBM/CBM motion is a genuine computed result, and the self-citations to the TDDFT+U framework [25] and the mode-selective Fourier analysis [59] are method citations with independent published content, not load-bearing circularity. The one notable weakness is the sentence in the Fig. 3(c) discussion: 'the band-gap oscillations are exclusively results of the adiabatic modulations of U due to the ionic motion.' This exclusivity attribution is missing a control calculation with U held fixed at its equilibrium value along the same A1g trajectory; without that counterfactual, the claim that U modulation is the sole causal channel is not established. That is a missing-support/correctness issue rather than a circular step, because the gap is not used to define U and the oscillatory band-edge response is not equivalent to the inputs by construction. Hence the circularity score is 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mechanistic claim rests on the DFT+U model and on the adiabatic reinterpretation of U; no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The effective Hubbard U is computed, not fitted to ARPES data, which is why no ad hoc fitted parameters are listed. The main model assumption is that U(tau) is a well-defined instantaneous quantity.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The linear-response DFT+U method (ref [25]) provides a meaningful effective Hubbard U = 3.4 eV for Te 5p orbitals, and TDDFT+U with Ehrenfest dynamics captures the photoexcited coherent phonon response.
    The entire theory section uses this U; the equilibrium gap of 0.355 eV is close to the experimental 0.33 eV, which supports the assumption but does not independently validate the time-dependent U modulation.
  • domain assumption The instantaneous U(tau) is well-defined and the band structure at each time is captured by static DFT+U(tau), i.e., the adiabatic approximation.
    Stated as 'adiabatic modulations of U'; this is the load-bearing premise for the exclusivity claim.
  • domain assumption The 3.46 THz and 2.97 THz oscillations are the A1g and E'LO phonons, respectively.
    Assignment is based on closeness to literature values (3.6 and 3.09 THz) and symmetry arguments, not on a fully mode-resolved structural measurement.
  • domain assumption The leading edges of the EDCs track the valence band maximum and conduction band minimum after electronic thermalization.
    Used to convert photoelectron intensity shifts into band energy shifts; relies on matrix element and lineshape assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light-induced renormalization of the band structure of chiral tellurium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5ZDZW3XD

@misc{pith2026241113954,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light-induced renormalization of the band structure of chiral tellurium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5ZDZW3XD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13954}
}
abstract

Chirality in tellurium derives from a Peierls distortion driven by strong electron-phonon coupling, making this material a unique candidate for observing a light-induced topological phase transition. By using time- and angle-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy (trARPES), we reveal that upon near-infrared photoexcitation the Peierls gap is modulated by displacively excited coherent phonons with $\mathrm{A_{1g}}$ symmetry as well as chiral-symmetry-breaking $\mathrm{E'_{LO}}$ modes. By comparison with state-of-the-art TDDFT+U calculations, we reveal the microscopic origin of the in-phase oscillations of band edges, due to phonon-induced modulation of the effective Hubbard $U$ term.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Laser-Controlled Nonlinear Hall Effect in Tellurium Solids via Nonlinear Phononics

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    THz laser pulses can excite phonons in tellurium that shift the lattice enough to flip the sign of the nonlinear Hall effect in electron-doped samples.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Fausti, R

    D. Fausti, R. I. Tobey, N. Dean, S. Kaiser, A. Dienst, M. C. Hoffmann, S. Pyon, T. Takayama, H. Takagi, and A. Cavalleri, Science 331, 189 (2011)

    2011

  2. [2]

    Ichikawa, S

    H. Ichikawa, S. Nozawa, T. Sato, A. Tomita, K. Ichiyanagi, M. Chollet, L. Guerin, N. Dean, A. Cavalleri, S. Adachi, et al., Nat. Mater. 10, 101 (2011)

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Stojchevska, I

    L. Stojchevska, I. Vaskivskyi, T. Mertelj, P. Kusar, D. Svetin, S. Brazovskii, and D. Mihailovic, Science 344, 177 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    F ¨orst, C

    M. F ¨orst, C. Manzoni, S. Kaiser, Y . Tomioka, Y . Tokura, R. Merlin, and A. Cavalleri, Nat. Phys. 7, 854 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Tancogne-Dejean, M

    N. Tancogne-Dejean, M. A. Sentef, and A. Rubio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 097402 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.097402

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.097402 2018

  6. [6]

    Beaulieu, S

    S. Beaulieu, S. Dong, N. Tancogne-Dejean, M. Dendzik, T. Pin- celli, J. Maklar, R. P. Xian, M. A. Sentef, M. Wolf, A. Rubio, et al., Science Advances 7, eabd9275 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    G. E. Topp, N. Tancogne-Dejean, A. F. Kemper, A. Rubio, and M. A. Sentef, Nature communications 9, 4452 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Gatti, A

    G. Gatti, A. Crepaldi, M. Puppin, N. Tancogne-Dejean, L. Xian, U. De Giovannini, S. Roth, S. Polishchuk, P. Bugnon, A. Magrez, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 076401 (2020), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.125.076401

    work page 2020

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Nilforoushan, M

    N. Nilforoushan, M. Casula, M. Caputo, E. Papalazarou, J. Caillaux, Z. Chen, L. Perfetti, A. Amaricci, D. Santos- Cottin, Y . Klein, et al., Phys. Rev. Research 2, 043397 (2020), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.2.043397

    2020

  2. [10]

    Huber, Y

    M. Huber, Y . Lin, G. Marini, L. Moreschini, C. Jozwiak, A. Bostwick, M. Calandra, and A.Lanzara, Sci. Adv. 10, eadl4481 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Tangney and S

    P. Tangney and S. Fahy, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 4340 (1999)

    1999

  4. [12]

    R. S. Caldwell and H. Y . Fan, Phys. Rev.114, 664 (1959)

    1959

  5. [13]

    Tutihasi, G

    S. Tutihasi, G. G. Roberts, R. C. Keezer, and R. E. Drews, Phys. Rev. 177, 1143 (1969)

    1969

  6. [14]

    P. W. Bridgman, Proc. Am. Acad. Sci. 72, 159 (1938)

    1938

  7. [15]

    P. W. Bridgman, Proc. Am. Acad. Sci. 74, 21 (1940)

    1940

  8. [16]

    P. W. Bridgman, Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci. 76, 1 (1945)

    1945

  9. [17]

    J. C. Jamieson and D. B. McWhan, J. Chem. Phys. 43, 1149 (1965)

    1965

  10. [18]

    Parthasarathy and W

    G. Parthasarathy and W. B. Holzapfel, Phys. Rev. B 37, 8499 (1988)

    1988

  11. [19]

    E. J. Sie, C. M. Nyby, C. D. Pemmaraju, S. J. Park, X. Shen, J. Yang, M. C. Hoffmann, B. K. Ofori-Okai, R. Li, A. H. Reid, et al., Nature 565, 61 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    M. Y . Zhang, Z. X. Wang, Y . N. Li, L. Y . Shi, D. Wu, T. Lin, S. J. Zhang, Y . Q. Liu, Q. M. Liu, J. Wang, et al., Phys. Rev. X 9, 021036 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    P. Hein, S. Jauernik, H. Erk, L. Yang, Y . Qi, Y . Sun, C. Felser, and M. Bauer, Nat. Commun. 11, 2613 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Gatti, D

    G. Gatti, D. Gos ´albez-Mart´ınez, S. S. Tsirkin, M. Fan- ciulli, M. Puppin, S. Polishchuk, S. Moser, L. Testa, E. Martino, S. Roth, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 216402 (2020), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.125.216402

    2020

  15. [23]

    Ojeda, C

    J. Ojeda, C. A. Arrell, J. Grilj, F. Frassetto, L. Mewes, H. Zhang, F. van Mourik, L. Poletto, and M. Chergui, Struc- tural Dynamics 3, 023602 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Crepaldi, S

    A. Crepaldi, S. Roth, G. Gatti, C. A. Arrell, J. Ojeda, F. van Mourk, P. Bugnon, A. Magrez, H. Berger, M. Chergui, et al., Chimia 71, 273 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Tancogne-Dejean, M

    N. Tancogne-Dejean, M. J. T. Oliveira, and A. Rubio, Phys. Rev. B 96, 245133 (2017), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.245133

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    See the supplemental material at URL XXX for additional in- formation about the temporal and frequency analysis, and dis- cussion about the coherent phonons phase. (????)

  19. [27]

    Bradley, Phil

    A. Bradley, Phil. Mag. 48, 477 (1924)

    1924

  20. [28]

    S. S. Tsirkin, P. A. Puente, and I. Souza, Phys. Rev. B 97, 035158 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    S ¸ahin, J

    C. S ¸ahin, J. Rou, J. Ma, and D. A. Pesin, Phys. Rev. B 97, 205206 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    G. L. J. A. Rikken and N. Avarvari, Phys. Rev. B 99, 245153 (2019). 6

    2019

  23. [31]

    Furukawa, Y

    T. Furukawa, Y . Shimokawa, K. Kobayashi, and T. Itou, Nat. Commun. 8, 954 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    de Juan, A

    F. de Juan, A. G. Grushin, T. Morimoto, and J. E. Moore, Nat. Commun. 8, 15995 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    V . M. Asnin, A. A. Bakun, A. M. Danishevskii, E. L. Ivchenko, G. E. Pikus, and A. A. Rogachev, JETP Lett. 28, 74 (1978)

    1978

  26. [34]

    Nakayama, A

    K. Nakayama, A. Tokuyama, K. Yamauchi, A. Moriya, T. Kato, K. Sugawara, S. Souma, M. Kitamura, K. Horiba, H. Kumi- gashira, et al., Nature 631, 54 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    J. L. Ma ˜nes, Phys. Rev. B 85, 155118 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    L. A. Agapito, N. Kioussis, W. A. Goddard, and N. P. Ong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 176401 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Hirayama, R

    M. Hirayama, R. Okugawa, S. Ishibashi, S. Murakami, and T. Miyake, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 206401 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    S. S. Tsirkin, I. Souza, and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B 96, 045102 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Chang, B

    G. Chang, B. J. Wieder, F. Schindler, D. S. Sanchez, I. Belopol- ski, S. M. Huang, B. Singh, D. Wu, T.-R. Chang, T. N. S.-Y . Xu, et al., Nat. Mater. 17, 978 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Y .-H. Chan, B. Kilic, M. M. Hirschmann, C.-K. Chiu, L. M. Schoop, D. G. Joshi, and A. P. Schnyder, Phys. Rev. Materials 3, 124204 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Sakano, M

    M. Sakano, M. Hirayama, T. Takahashi, S. Akebi, M. Nakayama, K. Kuroda, K. Taguchi, T. Yoshikawa, K. Miyamoto, T. Okuda, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 136404 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Merlin, Solid State

    R. Merlin, Solid State. Commun. 102, 207 (1997)

    1997

  35. [43]

    L. Dhar, J. A. Rogers, and K. A. Nelson, Chem. Rev. 94, 157 (1994)

    1994

  36. [44]

    T. E. Stevens, J. Kuhl, and R. Merlin, Phys. Rev. B 65, 144304 (2002), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.65.144304

    2002

  37. [45]

    Dekorsy, W

    T. Dekorsy, W. Kutt, T. Pfeifer, and d H. Kurz, Europhys. Lett. 23, 223 (1993)

    1993

  38. [46]

    A. V . Kuznetsov and C. J. Stanton, Phys. Rev. B 51, 7555 (1995), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.51.7555

    1995

  39. [47]

    Kamaraju, S

    N. Kamaraju, S. Kumar, M. Anija, and A. K. Sood, Phys. Rev. B 82, 195202 (2010)

    2010

  40. [48]

    Huber, M

    T. Huber, M. Ranke, A. Ferrer, L. Huber, and S. L. Johnson, Appl. Phys. Lett. 107, 091107 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Dekorsy, H

    T. Dekorsy, H. Auer, C. Waschke, H. J. Bakker, H. G. Roskos, H. Kurz, V . Wagner, and P. Grosse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 738 (1995)

    1995

  42. [50]

    O. V . Misochko, M. V . Lebedev, and T. Dekorsy, J. Phys.: Con- dens. Matter 17, 3015 (2005)

    2005

  43. [51]

    Chen and R

    I. Chen and R. Zallen, Phys. Rev. 173, 833 (1968)

    1968

  44. [52]

    A. S. Pine and G. Dresselhaus, Phys. Rev. B 4, 356 (1971)

    1971

  45. [53]

    B. M. P. P. Martel, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 36, 1287 (1975)

    1975

  46. [54]

    S. L. Johnson, E. V orobeva, P. Beaud, C. J. Milne, and G. In- gold, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 205501 (2009)

    2009

  47. [55]

    Nakayama, M

    K. Nakayama, M. Kuno, K. Yamauchi, S. Souma, K. Sugawara, T. Oguchi, T. Sato, and T. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. B 95, 125204 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    Tangney and S

    P. Tangney and S. Fahy, Phys. Rev. B65, 054302 (2002)

    2002

  49. [57]

    S. I. Kudryashov, M. Kandyla, C. A. D. Roeser, and E. Mazur, Phys. Rev. B 75, 085207 (2007)

    2007

  50. [58]

    G. C. Cho, W. K ¨utt, and H. Kurz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 764 (1990)

    1990

  51. [59]

    De Giovannini, H

    U. De Giovannini, H. H ¨ubener, S. A. Sato, and A. Rubio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 136401 (2020), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.136401

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    H. Ning, O. Mehio, C. Lian, X. Li, E. Zoghlin, P. Zhou, B. Cheng, S. D. Wilson, B. M. Wong, and D. Hsieh, Phys. Rev. B 106, 205118 (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    Jnawali, Y

    G. Jnawali, Y . Xiang, S. M. Linser, I. A. Shojaei, R. Wang, G. Qiu, C. Lian, B. M. Wong, W. Wu, P. D. Ye, et al., Nat. Commun. 11, 3991 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

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