Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Superconductivity in Ternary Germanite TaAl$_{x}$Ge$_{2-x}$ with a C40 chiral structure

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 This paper claims that substituting aluminum into the chiral C40 compound TaGe2 produces a type-II superconductor, TaAl_xGe_{2−x}, with Tc between 2.0 and 2.2 K for x in 0.2–0.4.

desk verdict A new C40 chiral-structure superconductor with solid basic evidence, but the nominal Al content is unverified and the x-window claim is partly limited by the 1.8 K floor. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14549 v1 pith:WTDTAVXG submitted 2024-11-21 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Daigo Koizumi , Shingo Kisanuki , Kenta Monden , Yusuke Kousaka , Hiroaki Shishido , Yoshihiko Togawa This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords chiralsuperconductorC40structureTaAl_xGe_{2−x}type-IIaluminumsubstitutionlatticeconstantsGe2
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 claims to have found a new family of chiral superconductors: substituting a small amount of aluminum into the germanium sites of TaGe2, which has a chiral hexagonal C40 crystal structure, produces TaAl_xGe_{2−x} that superconducts at 2.0–2.2 kelvin for x between 0.2 and 0.4. Both magnetization and resistivity measurements show a true type-II superconducting transition with volume fractions of 53–71%. The superconductivity is absent (at least above 1.8 K) in the undoped parent and is suppressed for x above 0.4, which the authors tie to a sudden expansion of the c-axis lattice constant. If this holds, the C40 disilicides and digermanides become a rare non-cubic chiral platform for studying unconventional pairing.

What carries the argument

The C40 chiral hexagonal structure (space groups P6_222 or P6_422) with its helical arrangement of Ta and Ge atoms is the host lattice; aluminum substitutes for germanium and acts as the tuning parameter. The paper tracks the evolution of lattice constants with x and uses Ginzburg-Landau analysis of lower and upper critical fields (Hc1 and Hc2) to extract penetration depth, coherence length, and Ginzburg-Landau parameter κ ≈ 3.4–4.5, which establishes the type-II nature.

What would settle it

Measure the aluminum content in the superconducting grains (e.g., by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy) and confirm that a sample with x = 0.2, after removing the Ta5Ge3 impurity, still shows a superconducting transition near 2.0 K with a diamagnetic volume fraction approaching 100%; if the transition disappears or the measured aluminum content falls outside 0.2–0.4, the intrinsic-composition claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that aluminum substitution in the chiral C40 compound TaGe2 induces bulk type-II superconductivity in the narrow composition window x = 0.2–0.4, with Tc = 2.0–2.2 K, as established by sharp diamagnetic drops in zero-field-cooled and field-cooled susceptibility, zero resistance in resistivity, and hysteretic magnetization loops. The authors further find that the superconducting window coincides with a monotonic shrinkage of both lattice constants a and c, while superconductivity disappears when c sharply expands for x > 0.4, suggesting a structural origin for the emergence of superconductivity.

Load-bearing premise

The superconductivity is an intrinsic property of the C40 TaAl_xGe_{2−x} phase with the nominal aluminum content, not a product of the few percent Ta5Ge3 impurity present in the x = 0.2 sample or of a composition that differs from the intended one.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The C40 TX2 family (T = Nb, Ta; X = Si, Ge) is now a candidate family for chiral superconductors with a hexagonal, not cubic, structure.
  • The near-doubling of Hc2(0) from x = 0.2 to 0.4 with only a 10% rise in Tc may indicate that aluminum substitution strengthens the spin-triplet component in the mixed pairing state, a speculation the authors offer.
  • If the c-axis expansion suppresses superconductivity for x > 0.4, applying uniaxial pressure along the c-axis to such samples might restore superconductivity, as the paper suggests.
  • The combination of chirality control and chirality-induced spin selectivity in these compounds might enable current-driven enhancement of superconducting properties, a route the authors propose for future exploration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's x values are nominal; a direct measurement of the aluminum content in the superconducting C40 grains would test whether the intrinsic superconducting phase truly lies in the 0.2–0.4 range, or whether the real composition window is shifted.
  • The absence of superconductivity in pure TaGe2 above 1.8 K contradicts an earlier report; extending measurements below 1.8 K would determine whether aluminum substitution is creating superconductivity or merely moving an already-existing transition upward.
  • The sharp compositional boundary near x = 0.4, together with the sudden c expansion, hints at a possible ordered Al superstructure; synchrotron diffraction could look for such superlattice reflections, as the authors themselves note.
  • The lattice-constant–Tc correlation implies a pressure response: hydrostatic pressure should raise Tc for samples near the low-x edge if the mechanism is volume-driven, a testable prediction beyond the paper's explicit claims.
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 the synthesis and characterization of ternary intermetallic compounds TaAl_xGe_{2-x} with the C40 chiral crystal structure for nominal Al contents x from 0 to 0.8. The authors find that samples with x = 0.2 and x = 0.4 become superconducting with Tc = 2.03 K and 2.16 K, respectively, as evidenced by diamagnetic shielding with large superconducting volume fractions (71% and 53% in FC), zero electrical resistance, and type-II M-H hysteresis loops. They also report that stoichiometric TaGe2 does not superconduct down to 1.8 K in their samples, in contrast to an earlier report, and that superconductivity is suppressed for x > 0.4. The paper discusses the lattice-constant evolution with Al substitution and suggests that the appearance of superconductivity correlates with a decrease of both a and c lattice parameters, while the suppression beyond x = 0.4 accompanies a sudden rise of the c parameter.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper introduces a new family of chiral-structure superconductors in the C40 class, extending the sparse list of non-cubic chiral superconductors. The evidence is internally consistent: the diamagnetic response with large volume fractions, zero resistance at the same temperatures, and type-II hysteresis are concordant bulk signatures. The manuscript also provides a plausible materials-design rationale (Al substitution to raise the DOS) and explicit discussion of the observed lattice-constant trends. The main weakness is that the Al content is purely nominal and the superconducting phase is not directly compositionally verified, so the claimed x-window and the Tc(x) trend rest on an unverified assumption. This is a load-bearing point that can be addressed with additional experiments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 1; Sec. 3 (Fig. 2, Fig. 3)] The Al content x is only nominal; no elemental composition analysis (e.g., EDX or WDS) is reported for the synthesized C40 grains. The lattice-parameter trends in Fig. 3 are used to infer successful substitution, but because Al and Ge have similar metallic radii, the observed monotonic decrease of a and c is not by itself a quantitative verification of the Al concentration. The large superconducting volume fractions and zero resistance are strong evidence for bulk superconductivity, but they do not establish that the superconducting phase has the claimed stoichiometry. Please provide elemental analysis on the actual grains that superconduct, or at least an independent composition check, and discuss the possibility that the effective Al content in the superconducting portion differs from the nominal x.
  2. [Sec. 3 (Fig. 2)] The x = 0.2 sample contains a few percent of Ta5Ge3 impurity phases. Although a shielding fraction of 71% makes an impurity-dominant origin unlikely, the paper does not directly exclude superconductivity from a minor phase—such as a thin intergranular phase or Al-enriched regions—that could produce similar bulk signatures. Please strengthen the phase-specific attribution, for example by measuring the superconducting properties of a phase-pure Ta5Ge3 reference sample, or by spatially resolved measurements on individual grains of the C40 phase.
  3. [Abstract; Sec. 3 (Fig. 4)] The claim that superconductivity 'disappeared or was largely suppressed' for x < 0.2 rests on measurements that stop at 1.8 K. Given the previous report of Tc = 1.9 K in bulk TaGe2 [28], the absence of a transition above 1.8 K is consistent with either suppression or with a transition at slightly lower temperatures. Please either extend measurements below 1.8 K for x = 0 and x = 0.1, or state this limitation explicitly in the abstract and concluding remarks and soften the phase-window claim accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5] In the last paragraph, 'mixed Copper pairing state' should be 'mixed Cooper pairing state'.
  2. [Sec. 3; Fig. 5; Fig. 7] The terms 'deducted' in the text and figure captions should be 'deduced' or 'determined' (e.g., 'Hc1(T) and Hc2(T) are deduced from the M-H curves').
  3. [Title] The word 'Germanite' in the title is a mineral name; for a compound of germanium the standard term is 'Germanide' (TaAlxGe2-x is a germanide).
  4. [Fig. 4(b)] The caption says 'Al-content x evolution of Tc and volume fraction (VF)', but the markers for VF are not explicitly identified in the caption. Please clarify what the open and closed symbols represent.
  5. [Sec. 4] The discussion of a possible ordered Al superstructure for x > 0.4 is explicitly speculative and is not supported by observed superlattice reflections; this is acceptable as a conjecture, but it should be more clearly separated from the data-based conclusions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central claims are direct experimental observations, and the fitted parameters are standard post-hoc characterizations, not predictions derived from the claimed result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental discovery: sharp ZFC/FC susceptibility drops with large volume fractions (71% and 53%) and zero electrical resistance at Tc = 2.0–2.2 K in TaAl0.2Ge1.8 and TaAl0.4Ge1.6, as shown in Figs. 4 and 6. The only fitted quantities are Hc1(0), Hc2(0), lambda_GL, xi_GL, and kappa_GL, obtained by standard Ginzburg–Landau fitting Hc1(T) = Hc1(0)[1 − (T/Tc)^2] and by linear extrapolation of Hc2(T); these are post-hoc characterizations of measured magnetic and resistive data, not inputs that define the superconducting transition, the Tc window, or the composition trend. The lattice-constant discussion in Section 4 is a qualitative interpretation of measured XRD data, not a fitted prediction asserted as derivation. Self-citations (refs. 16–19) concern chirality-controlled crystal growth and CISS, and are contextual, not load-bearing for the existence of superconductivity. The unverified nominal Al content and lack of elemental analysis are experimental-evidence weaknesses, not circularity. No equation or parameter used in the paper is equivalent by construction to the claimed result.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests mainly on the assumption of homogeneous Al substitution and the intrinsic nature of the superconducting signal. Hc1(0) and Hc2(0) are fitted parameters used for secondary characterization, not for the existence claim.

free parameters (2)
  • Hc1(0) = 74.2 Oe for x=0.2, 89.3 Oe for x=0.4
    Fitted from Hc1(T) = Hc1(0)[1-(T/Tc)^2] in Fig. 7; used to estimate penetration depth.
  • Hc2(0) = 850 Oe for x=0.2, 1810 Oe for x=0.4
    Linear extrapolation of Hc2(T) to 0 K; a rough fit, not independently measured.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Samples with x<=0.4 are single-phase C40 with Al substituting on Ge sites
    Assumed from XRD and monotonic lattice shrink; actual Al content and site occupancy are not measured.
  • domain assumption Observed superconductivity is intrinsic to the C40 phase, not to Ta5Ge3 impurities or other minority phases
    Ta5Ge3 impurities are present (a few percent at x=0.2 up to 16.5% at x=0.8); the text asserts VF values (53-71%) are too large to come from impurities, but no direct phase-specific measurement is made.
  • standard math Ginzburg-Landau formula Hc1(T)=Hc1(0)[1-(T/Tc)^2] and relation mu0 Hc1 ~ Phi0/pi/lambda^2 apply
    Used in Section 3 to extract Hc1(0) and penetration depth; standard but approximate.
invented entities (1)
  • Possible ordered Al substitution superlattice (superstructure) for x>0.4
    purpose: Explains the sudden increase of lattice constant c and the suppression of superconductivity at high Al content.
    Proposed in Section 4 as a hypothesis; no diffraction evidence of superstructure is presented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Superconductivity in Ternary Germanite TaAl$_{x}$Ge$_{2-x}$ with a C40 chiral structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WTDTAVXG

@misc{pith2026241114549,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Superconductivity in Ternary Germanite TaAl$_x$Ge$_2-x$ with a C40 chiral structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WTDTAVXG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14549}
}
abstract

We report a new family of chiral intermetallic superconductors TaAl$_{x}$Ge$_{2-x}$. The mother compound TaGe$_2$ has a C40-type chiral hexagonal crystal structure with a pair of enantiomorphic space groups of $P6{_2}22$ and $P6{_4}22$. By substituting Ge with Al, TaAl$_{x}$Ge$_{2-x}$ polycrystals with the C40 structure were synthesized with Al substitution $x$ from 0 to 0.8. Magnetic susceptibility, magnetization curves and electrical resistivity revealed that TaAl$_{x}$Ge$_{2-x}$ with $x$ of 0.2 to 0.4 was a type-II superconductor with a superconducting transition temperature $T_{\rm c}$ of 2.0 to 2.2 K. The superconductivity disappeared or was largely suppressed at $x$ less than 0.2 and more than 0.4, although all the measurements were performed at temperatures above 1.8 K. An emergence of superconductivity is discussed in terms of the lattice constants changes with the Al substitution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14549 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Crystal structures of (a) right-handed (space group: P6222) and (b) left-handed (space group: P6422) TaGe2 with a C40 chiral structure. The lower schematics show the (001) projection of each structure. Large brown and small purple balls represent Ta and Ge atoms, respectively. The black arrows are given as an eye guide to recognize the sense of screw alignments of the Ge atoms. Hc of 29.8 Oe [27], NbGe2 presented a … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the powder X-ray diffraction pattern of the synthesized TaAlxGe2−x with x from 0 to 0.8. When x is smaller than 0.2, a single phase of the chiral C40 compound is obtained as seen in the data for x = 0, where all the diffraction peaks are assigned to the indices of the C40 structure. In the specimen with x of 0.2, some extra peaks appear as indicated by inverse triangles, indicating a presence of impurity phase… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Lattice constants of TaAlxGe2−x, deducted by powder X-ray diffraction data. (a) the lattice constants a and c, and (b) their ratio as a function of Al-substitution x. that the Al substitution occurs inhomogeneously in the specimen in this regime. Namely, most part of the specimen is successfully substituted with the expected Al content but does not show superconductivity, while a small part of the specimen does show… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Magnetic field dependence of the magnetization of TaAl0.4Ge1.6. (a) A hysteresis full loop of the M-H curve collected at 1.80 K. (b) M-H curves at various temperatures. The inset shows the enlarged view of the low H region at 2.15 and 2.20 K. Hc1(T ) line is fitted by …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temperature dependence of the electrical resistivity of TaAl0.2Ge1.8 and TaAl0.4Ge1.6. The current value is fixed to be 3 mA. (a) The data at zero magnetic field from 300 K to the lowest temperature for x = 0.2, with an enlarged view of the low T region. (b) and (c) Th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Magnetic field-temperature (H-T) phase diagram for superconductivity in (a) TaAl0.2Ge1.8 and (b) TaAl0.4Ge1.6. The Hc1 was deducted by M-T measurements. The Hc2 was deducted by M-H and ρ-T measurements, represented by blue squares and green diamonds. of the superconduc…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    C. M. Knoedler and D. H. Douglass, J. Low Temp. Phys. 37, 189 (1979)

    work page 1979

  2. [1]

    Bauer, G

    E. Bauer, G. Hilscher, H. Michor, C. Paul, E. Scheidt, A. Gribanov, Y. Seropegin, H. No¨ el, M. Sigrist, and P. Rogl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 027003 (2004)

    work page 2004

  3. [2]

    Yasuda, H

    T. Yasuda, H. Shishido, T. Ueda, S. Hashimoto, R. Settai, T. Takeuchi, T. D. Matsuda, Y. Haga, and Y. ¯Onuki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 73, 1657 (2004)

    work page 2004

  4. [3]

    Togano, P

    K. Togano, P. Badica, Y. Nakamori, S. Orimo, H. Takeya, and K. Hirata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 247004 (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [4]

    Badica, T

    P. Badica, T. Kondo, and K. Togano, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 74, 1014 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [5]

    H. Q. Yuan, D. F. Agterberg, N. Hayashi, P. Badica, D. Vandervelde, K. Togano, M. Sigrist, and M. B. Salamon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 017006 (2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [6]

    G. L. J. A. Rikken and E. Raupach, Nature 390, 493 (1997)

    work page 1997

  8. [7]

    Kibayashi, Y

    S. Kibayashi, Y. Takahashi, S. Seki, and Y. Tokura, Nat. Commun. 5, 4583 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 36 references
  1. [8]

    Okamura, F

    Y. Okamura, F. Kagawa, S. Seki, M. Kubota, M. Kawasaki, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 197202 (2015)

    2015

  2. [9]

    Nakagawa, N

    N. Nakagawa, N. Abe, S. Toyoda, S. Kimura, J. Zaccaro, I. Gautier-Luneau, D. Luneau, Y. Kousaka, A. Sera, M. Sera, K. Inoue, J. Akimitsu, Y. Tokunaga, and T. Arima, Phys. Rev. B 96, 121102 (2017)

    2017

  3. [10]

    G. L. J. A. Rikken, J. F¨ olling, and P. Wyder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 236602 (2001)

    2001

  4. [11]

    Yokouchi, N

    T. Yokouchi, N. Kanazawa, A. Kikkawa, D. Morikawa, K. Shibata, T. Arima, Y. Taguchi, F. Kagawa, and Y. Tokura, Nat. Commun. 8, 866 (2017)

    2017

  5. [12]

    R. Aoki, Y. Kousaka, and Y. Togawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 057206 (2019)

    2019

  6. [13]

    G¨ ohler, V

    B. G¨ ohler, V. Hamelbeck, T. Z. Markus, M. Kettner, G. F. Hanne, Z. Vager, R. Naaman, and H. Zacharias, Science 331, 894 (2011)

    2011

  7. [14]

    Z. Xie, T. Z. Markus, S. R. Cohen, Z. Vager, R. Gutierrez, and R. Naaman, Nano Lett. 11, 4652 (2011)

    2011

  8. [15]

    A. Inui, R. Aoki, Y. Nishiue, K. Shiota, Y. Kousaka, H. Shishido, D. Hirobe, M. Suda, J. Ohe, J. Kishine, H. M. Yamamoto, and Y. Togawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 166602 (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    Kousaka, T

    Y. Kousaka, T. Sayo, S. Iwasaki, R. Saki, C. Shimada, H. Shishido, and Y. Togawa, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 62, 015506 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    Shiota, A

    K. Shiota, A. Inui, Y. Hosaka, R. Amano, Y. ¯Onuki, M. Hedo, T. Nakama, D. Hirobe, J. Ohe, J. Kishine, H. M. Yamamoto, H. Shishido, and Y. Togawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 126602 (2021)

    2021

  11. [18]

    Shishido, R

    H. Shishido, R. Sakai, Y. Hosaka, and Y. Togawa, Appl. Phys. Lett. 119, 182403 (2021)

    2021

  12. [19]

    Shishido, Y

    H. Shishido, Y. Hosaka, K. Monden, A. Inui, T. Sayo, Y. Kousaka, and Y. Togawa, J. Chem. Phys. 159, 064502 (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    K. Ohe, H. Shishido, M. Kato, S. Utsumi, H. Matsuura, and Y. Togawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 056302 (2024)

    2024

  14. [21]

    Togawa, A

    Y. Togawa, A. S. Ovchinnikov, and J. Kishine, J. Phys. So c. Jpn. 92, 081006 (2023)

    2023

  15. [22]

    Nakajima, D

    R. Nakajima, D. Hirobe, G. Kawaguchi, Y. Nabei, T. Sato, T. Narushima, H. Okamoto, and H. M. Yamamoto, Nature 613, 479 (2023)

    2023

  16. [23]

    Akazawa, H

    T. Akazawa, H. Hidaka, H. Kotegawa, T. C. Kobayashi, T. Fujiwara, E. Yamamoto, Y. Haga, R. Settai, and Y. ¯Onuki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 73, 3129 (2004)

    2004

  17. [24]

    Joshi, A

    B. Joshi, A. Thamizhavel, and S. Ramakrishnan, Phys. Re v. B 84, 064518 (2011)

    2011

  18. [25]

    E. M. Carnicom, W. Xie, T. Klimczuk, J. Lin, K. G´ ornicka , Z. Sobczak, N. P. Ong, and R. J. Cava, Sci. Adv. 4, eaar7969 (2018)

    2018

  19. [26]

    J. P. Remeika, A. S. Cooper, Z. Fisk, and D. C. Johnston, J. Less Common Met. 62, 211 (1978)

    1978

  20. [27]

    Gottlieb, J

    U. Gottlieb, J. C. Lasjaunias, J. L. Tholence, O. Labord e, O. Thomas, and R. Madar, Phys. Rev. B 45, 4803 (1992)

    1992

  21. [29]

    Sakamoto, A

    H. Sakamoto, A. Fujii, K. Tanaka, and H. Inui, Acta Mater . 53, 41 (2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    ¯Onuki, A

    Y. ¯Onuki, A. Nakamura, T. Uejo, A. Teruya, M. Hedo, T. Nakama, F. Honda, and H. Harima, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 83, 061018 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    B. Lv, M. Li, J. Chen, Y. Yang, S. W u, L. Qiao, F. Guan, H. Xing, Q. Tao, G.-H. Cao, and Z.-A. Xu, Phys. Rev. B 102, 064507 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    B. S. Chandrasekhar, Appl. Phys. Lett. 1, 7 (1962)

    1962

  25. [33]

    A. M. Clogston, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, 266 (1962)

    1962

  26. [34]

    M. H. Kabir, M. M. Hossain, M. A. Ali, M. M. Uddin, M. L. Ali, M. Z. Hasan, A. K. M. A. Islam, and S. H. Naqib, Results Phys. 51, 106701 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Sagayama, Y

    H. Sagayama, Y. W akabayashi, H. Sawa, T. Kamiyama, A. Hoshikawa, S. Harjo, K. Uozato, A. K. Ghosh, M. Tokunaga, and T. Tamegai, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 75, 043713 (2006)

    2006

  28. [36]

    Kuroiwa, H

    S. Kuroiwa, H. Sagayama, T. Kakiuchi, H. Sawa, Y. Noda, and J. Akimitsu, Phys. Rev. B 74, 014517 (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

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