Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Ultrafast Spectroscopy of Dirac Semimetal Cd3As2 under Pressure

T0 review · 4 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 Sub-picosecond signal appears only above 9 GPa in Cd3As2

desk verdict First pressure-dependent ultrafast study of Cd3As2 with a genuinely new fast channel above 9 GPa, but the diamond-window reflectivity model needs fixing before I'd trust the amplitudes. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15791 v1 pith:JV4UYYPC submitted 2024-11-24 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Vikas Arora , D. V. S. Muthu , R Sankar , A K Sood This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords DiracsemimetalCd3As2highpressureopticalpump-probespectroscopyultrafastcarrierrelaxationdiamondanvilcelldifferentialreflectivitybandgapopening
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 reports in-situ optical pump-probe measurements on the Dirac semimetal Cd3As2 held in a diamond anvil cell up to 11.3 GPa. It claims that the differential reflectivity $\Delta R/R$ and its relaxation times change abruptly at $P_{C1}\approx 3$ GPa and $P_{C2}\approx 9$ GPa, matching the known pressure-driven transformation from a Dirac semimetal to a semiconductor and a later isostructural transition. Above 9 GPa, a new positive sub-picosecond relaxation component with $\tau_3\approx 0.7$ ps emerges. The authors attribute negative $\Delta R/R$ to Pauli-blocked interband transitions and positive $\Delta R/R$ to intraband processes, and they reproduce the pressure dependence of the amplitudes only after opening a quadratic band gap beyond $\sim 3$ GPa. A two-temperature model supplies the electronic temperature as a function of time, and its derived time-resolved reflectivity matches the measured traces.

What carries the argument

The carrier dynamics are modeled with a Dirac Hamiltonian $H=\hbar v_F \mathbf{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}$ below $\sim 3$ GPa, replaced above that pressure by a quadratic-gap Hamiltonian $H_1=(\hbar^2/2m^\ast)(\sqrt{2}\eta k\sigma_x+\eta^2\sigma_y+k^2\sigma_z)$, with $\eta$ fixed by the pressure-dependent band gap from transport data and $m^\ast=0.04 m_e$. Differential reflectivity is computed from the Fresnel formula for a single air-sample interface, using the real and imaginary parts of the dielectric function for interband and intraband transitions; the two-temperature model provides $T_e(t)$, which enters the Fermi functions in the dielectric function. The sign of $\Delta R/R$ is the diagnostic: interband transitions give a negative contribution and intraband transitions a positive one, which is how the paper identifies the measured $A_1$ and $A_2$ components.

What would settle it

Measure a pressure-insensitive reference material under the same diamond-anvil-cell geometry and pressures; if its apparent $\Delta R/R$ shows jumps at $\sim 3$ and $\sim 9$ GPa, the sample-level assignment of the transitions is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central experimental discovery is that pressure continuously tunes the hot-carrier relaxation of Cd3As2: the fast interband amplitude $A_1$ and time $\tau_1$ stay roughly constant below $\sim 3$ GPa, decrease in the intermediate region, and change again beyond $\sim 9$ GPa, where a qualitatively new positive sub-picosecond channel ($A_3$, $\tau_3\approx 0.7$ ps) appears. The paper argues that these changes track the band-gap opening at $P_{C1}$ and the second transition at $P_{C2}$, and that the amplitude data require the gap to grow linearly with pressure with two different slopes, with a jump in activation energy from about 200 meV to 400 meV across 9 GPa. On this basis the paper assigns the negative component of $\Delta R/R$ to interband (Pauli-blocking) processes and the positive component to intraband processes, and shows that the time evolution computed from the two-temperature model reproduces the measured data.

Load-bearing premise

The reflectivity model treats the sample surface as a single air-sample interface, even though the measured light actually passes through a diamond anvil and a pressure medium, so pressure-dependent changes in the cell's optics could contaminate the reported $\Delta R/R$ changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, differential reflectivity can act as an in-situ, contact-free monitor of pressure-driven topological-to-semiconductor transitions in Dirac semimetals.
  • The appearance of the $\sim 0.7$ ps channel only above 9 GPa provides a new observable for the second transition that transport and Raman see only indirectly.
  • The need for a pressure-dependent quadratic gap in the model supports the view that the intermediate phase of Cd3As2 is a narrow-gap semiconductor whose gap widens with pressure.
  • The two-temperature-model comparison shows that the same fixed thermal parameters ($C_e$, $C_L$, $g_{e-ph}$, $B_{ph-ph}$) describe the hot-carrier decay across both transitions.
  • The positive/negative sign assignment for intraband/interband processes can be tested further by varying pump fluence and probe energy at ambient pressure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the single-interface Fresnel model were replaced with a three-layer model including the diamond anvil, some of the amplitude changes near 3 and 9 GPa could shift or weaken; a control experiment on a pressure-insensitive crystal under identical conditions would separate cell artifacts from sample physics.
  • The new sub-picosecond relaxation above 9 GPa is left unexplained by the paper; a natural extension is to measure its dependence on pump fluence, probe photon energy, and temperature to decide whether it reflects increased electron-phonon coupling, a new scattering channel, or a photoinduced absorption signature.
  • The same two-band framework could be applied to other symmetry-protected semimetals to map pressure-temperature phase boundaries purely optically, provided the cell-optics transfer function is calibrated.
  • The paper scales the calculated $\Delta R/R$ to match the ambient-pressure amplitudes; a fully parameter-free normalization would strengthen the quantitative claim about the pressure dependence.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports in-situ pressure-dependent optical pump–optical probe measurements on the Dirac semimetal Cd3As2 in a symmetric diamond anvil cell up to 11.3 GPa. The transient differential reflectivity ΔR/R is fit with a biexponential function below ~9 GPa and with a triexponential function above it. The authors identify two pressure scales, PC1~3 GPa and PC2~9 GPa, and claim that a new sub-picosecond relaxation component (A3, τ3≈0.7 ps) appears only beyond PC2. They assign the negative component A1 to interband (Pauli-blocked) transitions and the positive components A2 and A3 to intraband processes, using a two-temperature model together with Fresnel and dielectric-function calculations. The pressure evolution of A1 and A2 is reproduced by introducing a pressure-dependent band gap η′(P) taken from earlier transport data, with the Hamiltonian modified to include quadratic band opening above PC1.

Significance. If the central experimental claim holds, this would be the first ultrafast optical signature of the known Dirac-semimetal-to-semiconductor transition near 2.5–3 GPa and of the later ~9 GPa transition in Cd3As2, and it would add useful information on carrier relaxation in topological semimetals under pressure. The experimental apparatus is nontrivial and the paper makes a genuine attempt to connect the measured amplitudes with a microscopic interband/intraband model; the use of a two-temperature model with independently published thermal parameters is a strength. However, the most novel claim—the emergence of the A3 component above PC2—is currently under-supported: the Fresnel model neglects the diamond anvil window, the 9.5 GPa point is excluded from the main amplitude plots, the fits lack error bars and model-selection statistics, and the pressure-dependent calculation leans on a gap fitted to the very transition it is used to explain. These issues can be addressed, but they are load-bearing and need explicit quantitative treatment before the claim is accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2, Eqs. (3)–(4)] The reflectivity model assumes a single air–sample interface, with R=|(1−ñ)/(1+ñ)|², but the experiment records front-side reflection through a symmetric diamond anvil cell. The measured signal passes through the air/diamond and diamond/sample interfaces, and the pressure dependence of the diamond refractive index and any window birefringence or absorption are not included. The scaling factors used in Fig. 4d and the extracted amplitudes A1–A3 can therefore absorb pressure-dependent window effects. Because the emergence of A3 above ~9 GPa is the paper's most novel claim, the manuscript needs either a multilayer Fresnel treatment, a control measurement on an empty cell or on the pressure-transmitting medium at the same pressures, or a quantitative estimate of the window contribution. Without one of these, the reported PC2-associated threshold cannot be certified as intrinsic to Cd3As2.
  2. [Figure 3 and accompanying text] The 9.5 GPa point, at which A1 is stated to be close to zero, is excluded from Figs. 3a and 3b. This is precisely the pressure at which the A3 component is claimed to become necessary, so excluding it removes the most informative constraint on the abruptness of PC2 and on the onset of A3. The authors should plot all points including 9.5 GPa, report the fitted values and their uncertainties, and show that the triexponential model is statistically required at that pressure, for example by an F-test or a comparison of reduced χ² values.
  3. [§2, 'Theoretical Insights' and Fig. 4d] The pressure dependence of the calculated A1 and A2 is generated by inserting the piecewise-linear gap η′(P) fitted to transport data from Ref. [43] and by scaling the calculated ΔR/R to the ambient experimental amplitudes. The agreement in Fig. 4d is therefore partly a consistency check of the TTM/Fresnel scheme rather than an independent prediction of the pressure evolution. The paper should state this limitation explicitly, quantify the sensitivity of A1(P) and A2(P) to the uncertainties in the fitted parameters a1, b1, a2, b2, and report how the scaling factors were determined rather than only saying they were kept the same for all pressures.
  4. [Results, Eq. (1)–(2)] The manuscript gives no error bars for A1, A2, A3, τ1, τ2, or τ3, and no statistical model-selection criterion is provided for replacing the biexponential Eq. (1) with the triexponential Eq. (2) above 9 GPa. The statement that the data 'can only be fitted by Eq.2' needs quantitative support, such as residual plots, reduced χ² comparison, or an F-test for the additional component. Without this, the existence and pressure onset of the new sub-picosecond relaxation channel remain insufficiently established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3 caption] The caption states that A1 is close to zero at 9.5 GPa and is therefore not shown, but the main text describes A1 as constant in region III; this inconsistency should be resolved by showing the point and explaining the apparent jump between region II and region III.
  2. [Throughout] Several reference entries are malformed, for example Ref. [6] ('F. Gooth, J.and Menges'), Ref. [34] ('Pavel G. Qi, Yanpengand Naumov...'), and Ref. [48] ('R Sankar, M Neupane, S-Y Xu...'), and Ref. [49] appears to be a 2024 PRL that is not clearly related to the text's claim about tens-of-fs thermalization; these should be corrected and checked.
  3. [§2, Eq. (5)] The notation in Eq. (5) is confusing: it writes ε=(n+iκ)² but then identifies the real part as n²−κ² and the imaginary part as 2nκ; this is fine, but the sentence 'The temperature dependence of n and κ are...' has a subject-verb agreement error and should be rewritten.
  4. [§1, after Eq. (1)] The phrase 'Pauli blocking or band-filing' appears to be a typo for 'band-filling' and should be corrected.
  5. [Figure 4] The figure caption describes blue and red circles for A1 and A2, but the text also refers to black curves for the calculated components; the color coding and legend should be made explicit so readers can identify which symbols correspond to which pressure points.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Pressure-dependent A1/A2 calculation re-expresses the fitted gap η′(P) from ref. [43], so Fig. 4d is partly a consistency check; the new A3 component remains an independent empirical claim.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Theoretical Insights; Eqs. (8)-(10), Fig. 4b-4d]
    "The linear fits to the experimental data [43] (red curve in Figure 4b) is represented by η′, with the help of following equation: η′ = 0 for 0 < P <3 GPa; = (a1 + b1P) for 3 < P <9 GPa; = (a2 + b2P) for P >9 GPa ... For the pressures exceeding 3 GPa, the Hamiltonian is modified to H1 = (ℏ2/2m∗)(√(2ηkσx) + η2σy + k2σz) ... The pressure-dependent values of A1 and A2 obtained from Hamiltonian H1 show a close agreement between the calculated and experimental data."

    The kinks in the calculated A1/A2 versus pressure are not independently derived: they inherit the kinks of the piecewise η′(P) fit to the externally measured activation energy, whose break points are exactly PC1≈3 GPa and PC2≈9 GPa. The agreement in Fig. 4d is therefore largely a remapping of ref. [43] into reflectivity units, i.e., a consistency check rather than a prediction of the transition pressures. The circularity is partial because the Fresnel/Fermi conversion and the sign separation (interband negative, intraband positive) are additional nontrivial content.

  2. other [Theoretical Insights, final paragraph before Conclusions]
    "Therefore, after normalizing the calculated ∆ R/R(0) to A1 + A2 for a given pressure, the time evolution of the calculated ∆ R/R(t) aligns well with the experimental data, as shown in Figure 5."

    The zero-delay amplitude of the calculated trace is scaled to the measured A1+A2 at each pressure, so the amplitude agreement in Fig. 5 is imposed by construction; only the decay shape from the two-temperature model remains a genuine prediction. The paper explicitly discloses this normalization, so it is a mild, acknowledged reduction rather than a concealed circularity.

full rationale

The paper's most novel claim, a new positive sub-picosecond component A3 emerging above ~9 GPa, is an empirical fitting result and is not derived from the theory, so that claim is not circular. The theoretical pressure dependence of A1/A2 is partially circular because the calculation inserts the externally fitted band gap η′(P) from ref. [43], whose piecewise form is anchored at the same 3 GPa and 9 GPa transitions that the paper then reports as explained; the close agreement in Fig. 4d is thus partly a re-expression of the input. The additional normalization of ΔR/R(0) to A1+A2 removes amplitude prediction from the time traces, although the TTM decay shape is still a meaningful test. Ref. [44] is a same-group Raman study, but it is used only as corroboration of the ~9 GPa transition and the paper's own A1/τ1 data also change at that pressure, so the self-citation is not load-bearing under the externally-falsifiable-evidence rule. The single-interface Fresnel model (Eq. 3) used while measuring through a diamond anvil is a significant correctness risk for the A3 claim, but it is a modeling issue rather than a circularity and is not scored here. Overall, the central experimental finding has independent content, while the theoretical pressure-trend agreement is partly a consistency check, giving a mild-to-moderate circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis imports the pressure-dependent gap from [43] as a piecewise linear fit, ambient TTM parameters from [31], and an effective mass from [54]; two in-paper normalizations (ambient scaling and per-pressure normalization of ΔR/R(0)) further reduce the number of truly free predictions. No new physical entities are introduced. The dominant fragility is the air-medium Fresnel model applied to a diamond-cell geometry.

free parameters (3)
  • Pressure-dependent band gap η'(P) piecewise linear fit = 0 for P<3 GPa; -0.1117 + 0.03026P for 3-9 GPa; 0.03211 + 0.03684P for P>9 GPa, in eV
    Taken from linear fits to activation-energy data in [43]; inserted into H1 and determines the pressure trend of calculated A1/A2. Not derived in this paper.
  • Scaling factors for calculated ΔR/R = Set to match calculated A1 (interband) and A2 (intraband) to experimental values at ambient pressure
    The absolute calculated ΔR/R is normalized to measured amplitudes at ~0.8 GPa, and the same factors are used at all pressures; this removes absolute magnitude as a testable prediction.
  • Phonon energy cutoff for intraband transitions = ≈30 meV
    The intraband calculation weights phonon availability up to ~30 meV, taken from Raman data [44]; the exact treatment is not shown, so this acts as an input parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Cd3As2 is described by a 3D Dirac Hamiltonian H=ħvF k·σ at ambient pressure.
    Used in the interband/intraband ΔR/R calculation (Eq.7); assumes a single Dirac cone with linear dispersion and no other bands at 1.55 eV.
  • domain assumption After 3 GPa, the low-energy Hamiltonian is H1=(ħ²/2m*)(√2ηkσx+η²σy+k²σz) with m*=0.04 me.
    This quadratic band-opening model is an effective Hamiltonian introduced ad hoc for this paper; the effective mass is taken from [54].
  • ad hoc to paper Two-temperature model parameters Ce, CL, ge-ph, and Bph-ph from ambient studies [31] remain valid at all pressures.
    The time-resolved ΔR/R comparison in Figure 5 uses g=5.3e15 W/m3/K, Ce coefficient 70 J/m3/K2, CL=1.6e6 J/m3/K, and B=9.4e9 W/m3/K at all pressures up to 11.3 GPa; no pressure dependence is modeled.
  • ad hoc to paper The measured reflectivity can be modeled as a single air-medium interface (Eq.3).
    The experiment collects reflection through a diamond anvil, but Eqs.3-4 use the air-sample Fresnel formula with no diamond interface or pressure-dependent diamond refractive index correction.
  • domain assumption The sign of ΔR/R is dominated by Pauli blocking for interband transitions (negative) and carrier heating for intraband transitions (positive).
    Standard ultrafast interpretation used to assign A1 and A2; the paper does not derive this from a detailed band-structure calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultrafast Spectroscopy of Dirac Semimetal Cd3As2 under Pressure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JV4UYYPC

@misc{pith2026241115791,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultrafast Spectroscopy of Dirac Semimetal Cd3As2 under Pressure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JV4UYYPC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15791}
}
read the original abstract

Topological properties of a three-dimensional Dirac semimetal Cd3As2, protected by crystal rotation and time-reversal symmetry, can be tuned with the application of pressure. Ultrafast spectroscopy is a unique tool to investigate the character and time evolution of electronic states, emphasizing the signatures of transition. We designed an experimental setup for in-situ pressure-dependent ultrafast optical pump optical probe spectroscopy of Cd3As2 using a symmetric diamond anvil cell. The fast relaxation processes show significant changes across pressure-induced phase transitions at PC1, approximately 3 GPa, and PC2, approximately 9 GPa. A new sub-picosecond time scale relaxation dynamics emerges beyond PC2. Theoretical calculations of differential reflectivity for both interband and intraband processes indicate that the negative (positive) differential reflectivity (Delta R/R) results from the interband (intraband) processes. The pressure-dependent behavior of relaxation dynamics amplitudes beyond PC1 emphasized the necessity of incorporating quadratic band opening in the calculations, explaining the transition of Cd3As2 from a Dirac semimetal to a semiconducting phase. The time evolution of differential reflectivity is calculated using the electronic temperature as a function of time, as provided by the two-temperature model, which fits the experimental data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15791 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) In-situ high-pressure experimental setup for ultrafast optical pump optical probe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) ∆R/R with real-time: The solid dots represent the data at various pressures, while the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) The fast relaxation amplitude (A1) remains constant in the region I, gradually decreases in region II and remains constant again in region III. The amplitude A2 is weak as compared to A1 in regions I and II, (b) The fast relaxation time (τ1) is 2.0±0.1 ps in region I, shifts to 1.7±0.1 ps in region II and exhibits a drastic change in region III, For P=9.5 GPa, A1 is close to zero and hence it is not shown in (a)… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) The differential reflectivity, as a function of energy, is negative for interband (red) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The ∆R/R as a function of time for various pressures in the DSM phase of Cd3As2: The solid dots represent the data, and the black curves depict the reflectivity calculations as a function of electronic temperature, inherently related to time using the two-temperature m…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [43]

    Shan Zhang, Qi Wu, Leslie Schoop, Mazhar N. Ali, Youguo Shi, Ni Ni, Quinn Gibson, Shang Jiang, Vladimir Sidorov, Wei Yi, Jing Guo, Yazhou Zhou, Desheng Wu, Peiwen Gao, Dachun Gu, Chao Zhang, Sheng Jiang, Ke Yang, Aiguo Li, Yanchun Li, Xiaodong Li, Jing Liu, Xi Dai, Zhong Fang, Robert J. Cava, Liling Sun, and Zhongxian Zhao. Phys. Rev. B , 91:165133, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [1]

    Nature Communications, 9(1):3681, 2018

    Qi Wang, Yuanfeng Xu, Rui Lou, Zhonghao Liu, Man Li, Yaobo Huang, Dawei Shen, Hongming Weng, Shancai Wang, and Hechang Lei. Nature Communications, 9(1):3681, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    Chandra Shekhar, Ajaya K. Nayak, Yan Sun, Marcus Schmidt, Michael Nicklas, Inge Leermakers, Uli Zeitler, Yurii Skourski, Jochen Wosnitza, Zhongkai Liu, Yulin Chen, Walter Schnelle, Horst Borrmann, Yuri Grin, Claudia Felser, and Binghai Yan. Nature Physics, 11(8):645–649, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [3]

    Ali, Minhao Liu, R

    Tian Liang, Quinnn Gibson, Mazhar N. Ali, Minhao Liu, R. J. Cava, and N. P. Ong. Nature Materials, 14(3):280–284, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [4]

    Gopman, Liang Wu, Takashi Koretsune, Olaf M

    Tomoya Higo, Huiyuan Man, Daniel B. Gopman, Liang Wu, Takashi Koretsune, Olaf M. J. van ’t Erve, Yury P. Kabanov, Dylan Rees, Yufan Li, Michi-To Suzuki, Shreyas Patankar, Muhammad Ikhlas, C. L. Chien, Ryotaro Arita, Robert D. Shull, Joseph Orenstein, and Satoru Nakatsuji. Nature Photonics, 12(2):73–78, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    Nature Physics , 13(11):1085– 1090, 2017

    Muhammad Ikhlas, Takahiro Tomita, Takashi Koretsune, Michi-To Suzuki, Daisuke Nishio- Hamane, Ryotaro Arita, Yoshichika Otani, and Satoru Nakatsuji. Nature Physics , 13(11):1085– 1090, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [6]

    Gooth, J.and Menges, N

    F. Gooth, J.and Menges, N. Kumar, V. S¨ uβ, C. Shekhar, Y. Sun, U. Drechsler, R. Zierold, C. Felser, and B. Gotsmann. Nature Communications, 9(1):4093, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [7]

    Guin, Kaustuv Manna, Chandra Shekhar, and Claudia Felser

    Nitesh Kumar, Satya N. Guin, Kaustuv Manna, Chandra Shekhar, and Claudia Felser. Chemical Reviews, 121(5):2780–2815, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    S. M. Young, S. Zaheer, J. C. Y. Teo, C. L. Kane, E. J. Mele, and A. M. Rappe. Phys. Rev. Lett., 108:140405, 2012

    2012

  2. [9]

    Nature Communications, 5(1):4898, 2014

    Bohm-Jung Yang and Naoto Nagaosa. Nature Communications, 5(1):4898, 2014

    2014

  3. [10]

    J. Liu, Z. K.and Jiang, B. Zhou, Z. J. Wang, Y. Zhang, H. M. Weng, D. Prabhakaran, S.-K. Mo, H. Peng, P. Dudin, T. Kim, M. Hoesch, Z. Fang, X. Dai, Z. X. Shen, D. L. Feng, Z. Hussain, and Y. L. Chen. Nature Materials, 13(7):677–681, 2014

    2014

  4. [11]

    A. A. Burkov, M. D. Hook, and Leon Balents. Phys. Rev. B , 84:235126, 2011. 16

    2011

  5. [12]

    Zhijun Wang, Hongming Weng, Quansheng Wu, Xi Dai, and Zhong Fang. Phys. Rev. B, 88:125427, 2013

    2013

  6. [13]

    Zhou, Andras Gyenis, Benjamin E

    Sangjun Jeon, Brian B. Zhou, Andras Gyenis, Benjamin E. Feldman, Itamar Kimchi, Andrew C. Potter, Quinn D. Gibson, Robert J. Cava, Ashvin Vishwanath, and Ali Yazdani. Nature Materials, 13(9):851–856, 2014

    2014

  7. [14]

    Nakatake, M

    Hemian Yi, Zhijun Wang, Chaoyu Chen, Youguo Shi, Ya Feng, Aiji Liang, Zhuojin Xie, Shaolong He, Junfeng He, Yingying Peng, Xu Liu, Yan Liu, Lin Zhao, Guodong Liu, Xiaoli Dong, Jun Zhang, M. Nakatake, M. Arita, K. Shimada, H. Namatame, M. Taniguchi, Zuyan Xu, Chuangtian Chen, X...

    2014

  8. [15]

    Zahid Hasan

    Madhab Neupane, Su-Yang Xu, Raman Sankar, Nasser Alidoust, Guang Bian, Chang Liu, Ilya Be- lopolski, Tay-Rong Chang, Horng-Tay Jeng, Hsin Lin, Arun Bansil, Fangcheng Chou, and M. Zahid Hasan. Nature Communications, 5(1):3786, 2014

    2014

  9. [16]

    Sergey Borisenko, Quinn Gibson, Danil Evtushinsky, Volodymyr Zabolotnyy, Bernd B¨ uchner, and Robert J. Cava. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 113:027603, 2014

    2014

  10. [17]

    Rosenberg and Theodore C

    Arthur J. Rosenberg and Theodore C. Harman. Journal of Applied Physics , 30:1621, 1959

    1959

  11. [18]

    Nature Communications, 6(1):10137, 2015

    Cai-Zhen Li, Li-Xian Wang, Haiwen Liu, Jian Wang, Zhi-Min Liao, and Da-Peng Yu. Nature Communications, 6(1):10137, 2015

    2015

  12. [19]

    Narayanan, M

    A. Narayanan, M. D. Watson, S. F. Blake, N. Bruyant, L. Drigo, Y. L. Chen, D. Prabhakaran, B. Yan, C. Felser, T. Kong, P. C. Canfield, and A. I. Coldea. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 114:117201, 2015

    2015

  13. [20]

    Nature Photonics, 10(4):227–238, 2016

    Zhipei Sun, Amos Martinez, and Feng Wang. Nature Photonics, 10(4):227–238, 2016

    2016

  14. [21]

    Nature Nanotechnology, 4(12):839–843, 2009

    Fengnian Xia, Thomas Mueller, Yu-ming Lin, Alberto Valdes-Garcia, and Phaedon Avouris. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(12):839–843, 2009

    2009

  15. [22]

    Nature Photonics, 7(11):842–845, 2013

    Amos Martinez and Zhipei Sun. Nature Photonics, 7(11):842–845, 2013

    2013

  16. [23]

    ACS Photonics, 8(6):1689–1697, 2021

    Xiaomei Yao, Shengxi Zhang, Qiang Sun, Peizong Chen, Xutao Zhang, Libo Zhang, Jian Zhang, Yan Wu, Jin Zou, Pingping Chen, and Lin Wang. ACS Photonics, 8(6):1689–1697, 2021

    2021

  17. [24]

    Zhijun Wang, Yan Sun, Xing-Qiu Chen, Cesare Franchini, Gang Xu, Hongming Weng, Xi Dai, and Zhong Fang. Phys. Rev. B , 85:195320, 2012. 17

    2012

  18. [25]

    Z. K. Liu, B. Zhou, Y. Zhang, Z. J. Wang, H. M. Weng, D. Prabhakaran, S.-K. Mo, Z. X. Shen, Z. Fang, X. Dai, Z. Hussain, and Y. L. Chen. Science, 343(6173):864–867, 2014

    2014

  19. [26]

    Nano Letters, 17(2):834–841, 2017

    Qinsheng Wang, Cai-Zhen Li, Shaofeng Ge, Jin-Guang Li, Wei Lu, Jiawei Lai, Xuefeng Liu, Junchao Ma, Da-Peng Yu, Zhi-Min Liao, and Dong Sun. Nano Letters, 17(2):834–841, 2017

    2017

  20. [27]

    Yafei Meng, Chunhui Zhu, Yao Li, Xiang Yuan, Faxian Xiu, Yi Shi, Yongbing Xu, and Fengqiu Wang. Opt. Lett., 43(7):1503–1506, 2018

    2018

  21. [28]

    Wei Lu, Jiwei Ling, Faxian Xiu, and Dong Sun. Phys. Rev. B , 98:104310, 2018

    2018

  22. [29]

    C. P. Weber, Ernest Arushanov, Bryan S. Berggren, Tahereh Hosseini, Nikolai Kouklin, and Alex Nateprov. Applied Physics Letters , 106(23), 2015

    2015

  23. [30]

    Wei Lu, Shaofeng Ge, Xuefeng Liu, Hong Lu, Caizhen Li, Jiawei Lai, Chuan Zhao, Zhimin Liao, Shuang Jia, and Dong Sun. Phys. Rev. B , 95:024303, 2017

    2017

  24. [31]

    Applied Physics Letters , 111(9), 2017

    Chunhui Zhu, Xiang Yuan, Faxian Xiu, Chao Zhang, Yongbing Xu, Rong Zhang, Yi Shi, and Fengqiu Wang. Applied Physics Letters , 111(9), 2017

    2017

  25. [32]

    Nature Communications, 8(1):14111, 2017

    Chunhui Zhu, Fengqiu Wang, Yafei Meng, Xiang Yuan, Faxian Xiu, Hongyu Luo, Yazhou Wang, Jianfeng Li, Xinjie Lv, Liang He, Yongbing Xu, Junfeng Liu, Chao Zhang, Yi Shi, Rong Zhang, and Shining Zhu. Nature Communications, 8(1):14111, 2017

    2017

  26. [33]

    Cava, and N

    Tian Liang, Satya Kushwaha, Jinwoong Kim, Quinn Gibson, Jingjing Lin, Nicholas Kioussis, Robert J. Cava, and N. Phuan Ong. Science Advances, 3(5):e1602510, 2017

    2017

  27. [34]

    Qi, Yanpengand Naumov, Catherine R

    Pavel G. Qi, Yanpengand Naumov, Catherine R. Ali, Mazhar N.and Rajamathi, Walter Schnelle, Oleg Barkalov, Michael Hanfland, Shu-Chun Wu, Chandra Shekhar, Yan Sun, Vicky S¨ uß, Marcus Schmidt, Ulrich Schwarz, Eckhard Pippel, Peter Werner, Reinald Hillebrand, Tobias F¨ orster, E...

    2016

  28. [35]

    Schneeloch, Jeffrey C

    Sachith Dissanayake, Chunruo Duan, Junjie Yang, Jun Liu, Masaaki Matsuda, Changming Yue, John A. Schneeloch, Jeffrey C. Y. Teo, and Despina Louca. npj Quantum Materials , 4(1):45, 2019

    2019

  29. [36]

    R. D. dos Reis, S. C. Wu, Y. Sun, M. O. Ajeesh, C. Shekhar, M. Schmidt, C. Felser, B. Yan, and M. Nicklas. Phys. Rev. B , 93:205102, 2016. 18

    2016

  30. [37]

    New Journal of Physics , 20(8):083003, 2018

    Johannes M Braun, Harald Schneider, Manfred Helm, Rafa l Mirek, Lynn A Boatner, Robert E Marvel, Richard F Haglund, and Alexej Pashkin. New Journal of Physics , 20(8):083003, 2018

    2018

  31. [38]

    Nano Letters , 24(1):424–432, 2024

    Simin Wu, Weibin Chu, Yang Lu, and Minbiao Ji. Nano Letters , 24(1):424–432, 2024. PMID: 38153402

    2024

  32. [39]

    Kai Zhang, Jiafeng Xie, Jin Yang, Tianwu Wang, Fuhai Su, Yirong Wu, and Guangyou Fang.Phys. Rev. B, 109:115130, 2024

    2024

  33. [40]

    J Phys Condens Matter , 35(25), 2023

    Hongyu Tu, Lingyun Pan, Hongjian Qi, Shuhao Zhang, Fangfei Li, Chenglin Sun, Xin Wang, and Tian Cui. J Phys Condens Matter , 35(25), 2023

    2023

  34. [41]

    Ivan Fotev, Stephan Winnerl, Saicharan Aswartham, Sabine Wurmehl, Bernd B¨ uchner, Harald Schneider, Manfred Helm, and Alexej Pashkin. Phys. Rev. B , 108:035101, 2023

    2023

  35. [42]

    Y. Yang, Y. H. Meng, B. R. Lu, F. Jin, Y. G. Shi, F. Hong, S. S. Zhang, X. H. Yu, X. B. Wang, and J. L. Luo. Phys. Rev. B , 109:064307, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Satyendra Nath Gupta, D. V. S. Muthu, C. Shekhar, R. Sankar, C. Felser, and A. K. Sood. Europhysics Letters, 120(5):57003, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    H. K. Mao, P. M. Bell, J. W. Shaner, and D. J. Steinberg. Journal of Applied Physics , 49(6):3276– 3283, 1978

    1978

  38. [46]

    H. K. Mao, J. Xu, and P. M. Bell. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 91(B5):4673–4676, 1986

    1986

  39. [47]

    V. V. Prut. Russian Physics Journal , 65(7):1172–1178, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    5:12966, 2015

    R Sankar, M Neupane, S-Y Xu, C J Butler, I Zeljkovic, I Panneer Muthuselvam, F-T Huang, and S-T Guo. 5:12966, 2015

    2015

  41. [49]

    K. S. Takeda, K. Uchida, K. Nagai, S. Kusaba, S. Takahashi, and K. Tanaka. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 132:186901, 2024. 19

    2024

  42. [50]

    International journal of heat and mass transfer , 49(1-2):307– 316, 2006

    JK Chen, DY Tzou, and JE Beraun. International journal of heat and mass transfer , 49(1-2):307– 316, 2006

    2006

  43. [51]

    Advanced Functional Materials , 29(6):1806169, 2019

    Xiaofan Wang, Keisuke Shinokita, Hong En Lim, Nur Baizura Mohamed, Yuhei Miyauchi, Nguyen Thanh Cuong, Susumu Okada, and Kazunari Matsuda. Advanced Functional Materials , 29(6):1806169, 2019

    2019

  44. [52]

    Scientific Reports, 7(1):45500, 2017

    Adriano Mosca Conte, Olivia Pulci, and Friedhelm Bechstedt. Scientific Reports, 7(1):45500, 2017

    2017

  45. [53]

    A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim. Rev. Mod. Phys., 81:109–162, 2009

    2009

  46. [54]

    Philip J. W. Moll, Nityan L. Nair, Toni Helm, Andrew C. Potter, Itamar Kimchi, Ashvin Vish- wanath, and James G. Analytis. Nature, 535(7611):266–270, 2016

    2016

  47. [55]

    Solid State Communications , 44(3):373–377, 1982

    Katarzyna Karnicka-Moscicka, Andrzej Kisiel, and Lidia Zdanowicz. Solid State Communications , 44(3):373–377, 1982

    1982

  48. [56]

    ˙Zdanowicz

    L. ˙Zdanowicz. physica status solidi (b) , 20(2):473–480, 1967. 20

    1967

Pith tools

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