Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Pressure Dependence of Ultrafast Carrier Dynamics in Excitonic Insulator Ta$_2$NiSe$_5$

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 Pressure closes the excitonic gap in Ta2NiSe5 at 65 meV/GPa

desk verdict New pressure-resolved ultrafast data on Ta2NiSe5 with credible phase boundaries, but the 65 meV/GPa gap slope is weakened by circular RT inversion and an internal gap inconsistency. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18031 v1 pith:DSO23ADK submitted 2024-11-27 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Vikas Arora , Victor S Muthu , Arijit Sinha , Luminita Harnagea , U V Waghmare , A K Sood This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords ExcitonicinsulatorTa2NiSe5HighpressureOpticalpump-opticalprobespectroscopyUltrafastcarrierdynamicsRothwarf-TaylormodelPressure-dependentbandgapDiamondanvilcell
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 that in the excitonic insulator Ta2NiSe5, applied pressure linearly closes the excitonic semi-bandgap at a rate of 65 meV/GPa between ambient pressure and about 1 GPa. The claim is extracted from the pressure dependence of the fast relaxation amplitude and time in optical pump–probe measurements, interpreted through the Rothwarf–Taylor model, and it agrees with a first-principles value of 70 meV/GPa. If correct, this identifies pressure as a continuous tuning knob for the excitonic ground state and locates the insulator-to-semiconductor and semiconductor-to-semimetal boundaries at roughly 1 and 3 GPa. The result matters because it ties a collective many-body phenomenon, exciton condensation, to a simple single-parameter description of the gap.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Rothwarf–Taylor model of photoexcited carriers in a gapped state, originally formulated for superconductors: photoexcitation breaks excitons into free electrons and holes, recombination releases high-frequency phonons, and those phonons either re-break excitons (bottleneck) or decay into low-frequency phonons. Its closed-form expressions for the fast relaxation amplitude $A_1$ and time $\tau_1$, Eq. (2), depend on the semi-bandgap $\Delta$ through a Boltzmann factor $\exp(-\Delta/k_B T)$; because the experiment runs at fixed temperature, pressure enters only through $\Delta(P)$. On the theory side, the supporting machinery is a constrained-occupation density-functional calculation in which an electron is promoted to a conduction state at the $\Gamma$ point and the total-energy difference defines the gap at each pressure. Together the two pieces convert measured relaxation traces into a pressure coefficient for the gap.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the optical or electronic gap in Ta2NiSe5 under hydrostatic pressure in the 0–1 GPa range, for example by pressure-dependent absorption, reflectivity-edge, or angle-resolved photoemission, would settle the claim: if the gap does not follow a roughly linear 65 meV/GPa decrease, or if phonon linewidths change enough to shift the Rothwarf–Taylor parameters, the extracted pressure coefficient is an artifact of the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the fast relaxation channel observed in time-resolved differential reflectivity of Ta2NiSe5 carries the signature of gap closure: both the amplitude $A_1$ and the relaxation time $\tau_1$ fall as pressure rises through the excitonic-insulator region. Using the Rothwarf–Taylor expressions $A_1 = \frac{A_0/\Delta(P)}{1+J\exp(-\Delta(P)/k_B T)}$ and $\tau_1 = \frac{1}{K + L\sqrt{\Delta(P)\,T}\exp(-\Delta(P)/k_B T)}$, the authors assign the entire pressure dependence to the semi-bandgap $\Delta$ and obtain $\Delta(P) = 128 - 65P$ meV. A constrained-occupation DFT calculation in a $2\times2\times1$ supercell gives a slope of 70 meV/GPa for the same quantity, which the paper takes as close agreement. The same data set shows abrupt changes in $A_1$ and $\tau_1$ near 1 GPa and again near 3 GPa, which the authors identify with the transition from the excitonic insulator to a semiconductor and then to a semimetal.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest point is the assumption that the Rothwarf–Taylor parameters $A_0$, $J$, $K$, and $L$ are independent of pressure between 0 and 1 GPa, so that every change in $A_1$ and $\tau_1$ is attributed to the gap $\Delta(P)$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Within the excitonic-insulator phase, the semi-bandgap obeys $\Delta(P) = 128 - 65P$ meV, meaning compression of about 1 GPa nearly halves the gap and destabilizes the EI phase.
  • The phase boundaries at roughly 1 GPa (EI to semiconductor) and 3 GPa (semiconductor to semimetal), previously inferred from transport and Raman data, appear directly in the ultrafast relaxation amplitudes and times.
  • Above 3 GPa the fast relaxation time shortens again, consistent with a semimetal whose growing carrier density opens extra relaxation channels.
  • The slow relaxation channel, assigned to hot-phonon decay, also speeds up with pressure in the EI phase and correlates with pressure-broadened Raman linewidths.
  • Agreement between the experimental 65 meV/GPa and calculated 70 meV/GPa supports using constrained-occupation DFT as a predictor for pressure-driven gap closure in other candidate excitonic insulators.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the linear gap closure holds, pressure offers a clean route through the BEC–BCS crossover region of the excitonic insulator without chemical doping, since it tunes the exciton binding energy relative to the band gap.
  • The assumption of pressure-independent Rothwarf–Taylor parameters could be tested directly by combining the same pump–probe traces with pressure-dependent Raman linewidths: a correlated change in $K$ or $L$ would mean the extracted $\Delta(P)$ partly absorbs electron–phonon coupling changes.
  • Cooling the same experiment toward the 328 K transition temperature would separate the Boltzmann factor $\exp(-\Delta/k_B T)$ from the gap itself, giving a second, independent estimate of $\Delta(P)$.
  • A natural extension is to repeat the analysis at higher pump fluences; the paper's fluence dependence of $\tau_1$ suggests the bottleneck efficiency changes with carrier density, which would modify the extracted $\Delta$ if $L$ depends on fluence.
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 manuscript reports pressure-dependent optical pump-optical probe reflectivity measurements on the candidate excitonic insulator Ta2NiSe5 inside a diamond anvil cell. A biexponential fit separates fast and slow relaxation components; changes in the fitting parameters near 1 and 3 GPa are assigned to an excitonic-insulator-to-semiconductor transition and a semiconductor-to-semimetal transition. In the EI phase, the fast amplitude and relaxation time are interpreted with the Rothwarf-Taylor model, Eq. (2), to yield a linear semi-bandgap variation Delta(P) = 128 - 65 P meV, and the 65 meV/GPa slope is compared with a constrained-occupation DFT value of 70 meV/GPa. The authors also report fluence-dependent relaxation times and discuss the pressure dependence of the slow phonon-related channel.

Significance. If the quantitative claim were robust, the paper would provide a direct ultrafast-spectroscopy measurement of the pressure coefficient of the excitonic gap in Ta2NiSe5, a cross-check for constrained DFT, and a useful demonstration of in situ high-pressure pump-probe spectroscopy. The qualitative phase assignments are supported by clear changes in independently fitted relaxation parameters and are consistent with prior resistivity and Raman work. The DFT calculation is a genuine external benchmark rather than a refit of the experimental data, which is a strength. However, the load-bearing Rothwarf-Taylor inversion is underdetermined as presented, the extracted slope has no stated uncertainty, and one of the paper's own cited gap values is inconsistent with the fitted Delta(P). For these reasons the central quantitative claim is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Results and discussion, after Eq. (2)] The inversion procedure that yields the central 65 meV/GPa slope is not specified. Equation (2) is written with A0, J, K, L and Delta as fitting parameters; since A1 and tau1 provide only two measured numbers per pressure, a point-by-point inversion is underdetermined, and a global fit would require stating how A0, J, K, L are constrained. No parameter values, no number of fitted points, and no error bars on Delta0 or the slope are given. The authors should report the full fitting protocol, the optimized RT constants, and the confidence interval of the slope, or the quantitative claim should be explicitly downgraded to a model-dependent estimate.
  2. [Figure 3(a,b) and derivation of Delta(P)] The black RT curves in Fig. 3(a,b) are not an independent validation of the model. The text evaluates Delta(P) from the experimental A1 and tau1 through Eq. (2) and then plots Eq. (2) with that same Delta(P); the visual agreement is therefore a consistency check imposed by the inversion. The DFT slope of 70 meV/GPa remains the only external benchmark, and the discussion should be revised so that the fitted curves are not presented as confirmation of the extracted slope.
  3. [Results and discussion, paragraph on extraction of Delta] There is an internal numerical inconsistency with the cited literature gap. The linear relation Delta(P) = 128 - 65 P meV gives 2Delta(1 GPa) = 126 meV, while the same paragraph states that at P = 1 GPa the semiconductor bandgap is 2Delta = 160 meV (Ref. [48]). If the 160 meV value is correct, the extracted slope is incompatible with it; if it is not meant to be compared, the reason must be stated. This should be resolved either by imposing the 160 meV point as a constraint in the fit or by providing uncertainties large enough to cover the difference.
  4. [Eq. (2) and pressure dependence of RT parameters] The assignment of all pressure dependence of A1 and tau1 to Delta(P) assumes that A0, J, K, and L are independent of pressure up to P_C1. The manuscript itself notes that Raman linewidths increase under pressure (Ref. [27]) and discusses pressure-dependent electron-phonon coupling, so the phonon-bottleneck parameters J and L, and possibly K and A0, may vary. A concrete check is to fit the EI-phase dataset with Delta(P) = Delta0 - a P while allowing one or more RT parameters to vary and to compare the quality of fit, or to constrain Delta(P) independently.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'The pressure coefficient of the bandgap decreases, 65 meV/GPa' reads awkwardly; suggest 'decreases with a pressure coefficient of 65 meV/GPa'.
  2. [Equation (2)] The symbol Delta is used both for the excitonic binding energy (Delta_EI = 2Delta) and for the semi-bandgap Delta; this double use should be clarified with distinct notation.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption calls the black lines a fit, while the text says the same curves are produced from the extracted Delta(P); the wording should be made consistent.
  4. [Conclusions] The sentence 'A direction correlation is observed...' contains a typo ('direction' should be 'direct').
  5. [Results and discussion, Figure 3] The values P_C1 ~ 1 GPa and P_C2 ~ 3 GPa are reported but no criterion is defined for how they were read off from the pressure-dependent fitting parameters; an explicit procedure would help.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 65 meV/GPa bandgap slope is obtained by inverting Eq. 2 against the same A1/tau1 data that the black RT curves later reproduce, making the model agreement a restatement of the fit; the DFT slope is the only external check.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Results and discussions, Eq. 2 and following paragraph (pp. 6-7; Fig. 3)]
    "Using the Eq. 2 and the experimental value of A 1 and τ1 at different pressures, we evaluated the value of ∆, the semi-bandgap. A linear reduction in ∆ is observed with a slope of 65 meV/GPa... This expression is utilized to evaluate the expression of amplitude (A1) and the relaxation time (τ1) employing Eq. 2, represented by the black solid curves in the EI phase of Figure 3a and 3b, respectively."

    The black model curves are produced by inserting back into Eq. 2 the very same ∆(P) that was 'evaluated' by inverting Eq. 2 against the same A1 and τ1 data. For fixed A0,J,K,L, Eq. 2 is a deterministic mapping from ∆ to (A1,τ1), so the curves must track the data if the inversion was successful; the agreement carries no independent predictive content. The 65 meV/GPa slope is thus a fitted outcome of the RT inversion, not a prediction, and the paper does not state how A0,J,K,L are constrained before ∆(P) is extracted. The only external validation is the DFT slope of 70 meV/GPa, but the paper's own ∆(P)=128−65P gives 2∆≈126 meV at 1 GPa, inconsistent with the cited 2∆=160 meV at P_C1 [48], so the fitted closure is not independently anchored.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim (gap slope 65 meV/GPa) is derived by inverting the Rothwarf-Taylor expressions (Eq. 2) with A0,J,K,L,Δ as fitting parameters, and the black curves in Fig. 3 are then generated from the same Eq. 2 using that fitted Δ(P). This is a fitted-input-called-prediction loop: the 'capture' of the A1 and τ1 trends is by construction rather than an independent test. I do not find self-citation load-bearing: the U=6.0 eV choice and DFT methodology cite the authors' prior work [27,45], but those papers do not contain the target pressure slope and the DFT calculation is a separate calculation performed for this paper. The DFT value of 70 meV/GPa is an external benchmark that partially supports the slope, which prevents the circularity from being total. However, the extraction is underdetermined and internally inconsistent with the cited 2Δ=160 meV at P=1 GPa, so the experimental slope is not robustly established. Score 6: one central prediction reduces by construction, while independent DFT input prevents a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative claim rests on six fitted quantities: the RT prefactors A0,J,K,L, the ambient semi-gap Delta0, and the pressure slope a. Five domain assumptions enter: the biexponential decomposition, the validity of the RT model for an EI at 300 K, the pressure-independence of the RT parameters, the constrained-occupation DFT estimate of the excitonic gap, and the DFT functional choice. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • A0 (RT amplitude prefactor) = not stated
    Prefactor in Eq.2 for A1; listed as a fitting parameter, absorbing fluence and detection efficiency.
  • J (RT thermal activation factor) = not stated
    Dimensionless coefficient in the denominator of A1; fitted from data.
  • K (RT recombination rate) = not stated
    Rate constant in the tau1 expression; fitted from data.
  • L (RT phonon bottleneck coefficient) = not stated
    Coefficient of the phonon-assisted term in tau1; fitted from data.
  • Delta0 (ambient semi-bandgap) = 128 meV
    Intercept of the linear fit to Delta(P) values extracted from A1 and tau1 via Eq.2.
  • a (semi-bandgap pressure coefficient) = 65 meV/GPa
    Slope of the same linear fit; the paper's central quantitative result.
  • Hubbard U on Ta-5d = 6.0 eV
    Adopted from the authors' earlier work (ref 27); the DFT bandgap and its pressure slope depend on this value.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The differential reflectivity signal is adequately described by two exponential decays plus a constant (Eq. 1), with the fast component assigned to exciton recombination.
    Used to extract A1, tau1, A2, tau2. If additional relaxation channels or coherent artifacts overlap the fast decay, the extracted parameters and hence Delta(P) would shift.
  • domain assumption The Rothwarf-Taylor equations (Eq. 2) govern the fast amplitude and relaxation time at fixed temperature with a temperature-independent gap Delta.
    The RT model was formulated for superconductors; its validity for a room-temperature excitonic insulator under pressure is assumed rather than demonstrated.
  • ad hoc to paper A0, J, K and L are independent of pressure over the EI phase, so all pressure dependence of A1 and tau1 is attributed solely to Delta(P).
    This is the premise that lets the authors invert Eq.2 to obtain Delta(P). Pressure-induced changes in phonon spectra, electron-phonon coupling, or carrier density would violate it.
  • domain assumption A 2x2x1 supercell with manually fixed Kohn-Sham occupations at Gamma estimates the excitonic gap and its pressure dependence.
    Constrained DFT is an approximation to the exciton; the result may depend on the choice of occupations, supercell size, and Hubbard U.
  • domain assumption PBE + optB88-vdW + U (U=6 eV on Ta-5d) accurately describes the ground state and its compression response.
    The DFT pressure coefficient inherits errors from the exchange-correlation functional, vdW treatment, and the U value taken from prior work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pressure Dependence of Ultrafast Carrier Dynamics in Excitonic Insulator Ta$_2$NiSe$_5$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DSO23ADK

@misc{pith2026241118031,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pressure Dependence of Ultrafast Carrier Dynamics in Excitonic Insulator Ta$_2$NiSe$_5$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DSO23ADK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18031}
}
abstract

An excitonic insulator (EI) phase is a consequence of collective many-body effects where an optical band gap is formed by the condensation of electron-hole pairs or excitons. We report pressure-dependent optical pump optical probe spectroscopy of EI Ta$_2$NiSe$_5$ in an on-site in situ geometry. The fast relaxation process depicts the transition across P$_{C_1}$ $\sim$1 GPa from EI phase to a semiconductor and P$_{C_2}$ $\sim$3 GPa from a semiconductor to a semimetallic phase. The instability of the EI phase beyond P$_{C_1}$ is captured by the Rothwarf-Taylor model by incorporating the decrease of the bandgap under pressure. The pressure coefficient of the bandgap decreases, 65 meV/GPa closely agrees with the first principle calculations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18031 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) With an On-site in situ geometry, a high-pressure experimental setup for ultrafast optical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Time-resolved differential reflectivity at three different pressures, P=0.2, 1.9, 3.3 GPa. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fitting parameters of the biexponential fit to the time-resolved differential reflectivity at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Rothwarf Taylor model illustrates amplitude (A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) τ1 versus pump fluence at different pressures (b) τ2 vs fluence at different pressures. The solid lines are linear fits. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [48]

    Tianwei Tang, Hongyuan Wang, Shaofeng Duan, Yuanyuan Yang, Chaozhi Huang, Yanfeng Guo, Dong Qian, and Wentao Zhang. Phys. Rev. B , 101:235148, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [27]

    Sukanya Pal, Shivani Grover, Luminita Harnagea, Prachi Telang, Anupam Singh, D. V. S. Muthu, U. V. Waghmare, and A. K. Sood. Phys. Rev. Res. , 2:043182, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [1]

    R.S. Knox. Solid State Phys. Suppl. , 5:100, 1963

    work page 1963

  4. [2]

    B. I. HALPERIN and T. M. RICE. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 40:755–766, 1968

    work page 1968

  5. [3]

    N.F. Mott. Phil. Mag. , 6(62):287–309, 1961

    work page 1961

  6. [4]

    J´ erome, T

    D. J´ erome, T. M. Rice, and W. Kohn. Phys. Rev., 158:462–475, 1967

    1967

  7. [5]

    Bucher, P

    B. Bucher, P. Steiner, and P. Wachter. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 67:2717–2720, 1991

    work page 1991

  8. [6]

    Bronold and Holger Fehske

    Franz X. Bronold and Holger Fehske. Phys. Rev. B , 74:165107, 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 50 references
  1. [7]

    Y. F. Lu, H. Kono, T. I. Larkin, A. W. Rost, T. Takayama, A. V. Boris, B. Keimer, and H. Takagi. Nature Communications, 8(1):14408, 2017

    2017

  2. [8]

    Wachter, B

    P. Wachter, B. Bucher, and J. Malar. Phys. Rev. B , 69:094502, 2004

    2004

  3. [9]

    Cercellier, C

    H. Cercellier, C. Monney, F. Clerc, C. Battaglia, L. Despont, M. G. Garnier, H. Beck, P. Aebi, L. Patthey, H. Berger, and L. Forr´ o.Phys. Rev. Lett. , 99:146403, 2007

    2007

  4. [10]

    Wakisaka, T

    Y. Wakisaka, T. Sudayama, K. Takubo, T. Mizokawa, M. Arita, H. Namatame, M. Taniguchi, N. Katayama, M. Nohara, and H. Takagi. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 103:026402, 2009

    2009

  5. [11]

    Alexandre Cevallos, Michael Onyszczak, Nadezhda Fishchenko, Xiaomeng Liu, Gelareh Farahi, Fang Xie, Yuanfeng Xu, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, B

    Yanyu Jia, Pengjie Wang, Cheng-Li Chiu, Zhida Song, Guo Yu, Berthold J¨ ack, Shiming Lei, Sebas- tian Klemenz, F. Alexandre Cevallos, Michael Onyszczak, Nadezhda Fishchenko, Xiaomeng Liu, Gelareh Farahi, Fang Xie, Yuanfeng Xu, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, B. Andrei Berne...

    2022

  6. [12]

    Nature Physics, 18(10):1171–1176, 2022

    Dongxue Chen, Zhen Lian, Xiong Huang, Ying Su, Mina Rashetnia, Lei Ma, Li Yan, Mark Blei, Li Xiang, Takashi Taniguchi, Kenji Watanabe, Sefaattin Tongay, Dmitry Smirnov, Zenghui Wang, Chuanwei Zhang, Yong-Tao Cui, and Su-Fei Shi. Nature Physics, 18(10):1171–1176, 2022

    2022

  7. [13]

    Di Salvo, C.H

    F.J. Di Salvo, C.H. Chen, R.M. Fleming, J.V. Waszczak, R.G. Dunn, S.A. Sunshine, and James A. Ibers. Journal of the Less Common Metals , 116(1):51–61, 1986

    1986

  8. [14]

    Kaneko, T

    T. Kaneko, T. Toriyama, T. Konishi, and Y. Ohta. Phys. Rev. B , 87:035121, 2013. 14

    2013

  9. [15]

    Sunshine and James A

    Steven A. Sunshine and James A. Ibers. Inorganic Chemistry, 24(22):3611–3614, 1985

    1985

  10. [16]

    Wakisaka, T

    Y. Wakisaka, T. Sudayama, K. Takubo, T. Mizokawa, N. L. Saini, M. Arita, H. Namatame, M. Taniguchi, N. Katayama, M. Nohara, and H. Takagi. Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism, 25(5):1231–1234, 2012

    2012

  11. [17]

    Inorganic Chemistry , 58(14):9036–9042, 2019

    Jian Yan, Ruichun Xiao, Xuan Luo, Hongyan Lv, Ranran Zhang, Yan Sun, Peng Tong, Wenjian Lu, Wenhai Song, Xuebin Zhu, and Yuping Sun. Inorganic Chemistry , 58(14):9036–9042, 2019. PMID: 31246443

    2019

  12. [18]

    Michael, Lukas Windgaet- ter, Igor I

    Edoardo Baldini, Alfred Zong, Dongsung Choi, Changmin Lee, Marios H. Michael, Lukas Windgaet- ter, Igor I. Mazin, Simone Latini, Doron Azoury, Baiqing Lv, Anshul Kogar, Yifan Su, Yao Wang, Yangfan Lu, Tomohiro Takayama, Hidenori Takagi, Andrew J. Millis, Angel Rubio, Eugene De...

    2023

  13. [19]

    Millis, Simone Latini, and Angel Rubio

    Lukas Windg¨ atter, Malte R¨ osner, Giacomo Mazza, Hannes H¨ ubener, Antoine Georges, Andrew J. Millis, Simone Latini, and Angel Rubio. npj Computational Materials , 7(1):210, 2021

    2021

  14. [20]

    ACS Nano, 10(9):8888–8894, 2016

    So Young Kim, Youngwook Kim, Chang-Jong Kang, Eun-Su An, Hyoung Kug Kim, Man Jin Eom, Minkyung Lee, Chibeom Park, Tae-Hwan Kim, Hee Cheul Choi, Byung Il Min, and Jun Sung Kim. ACS Nano, 10(9):8888–8894, 2016. PMID: 27526274

    2016

  15. [21]

    Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter , 30(30):305602, 2018

    Daniel Werdehausen, Tomohiro Takayama, Gelon Albrecht, Yangfan Lu, Hidenori Takagi, and Stefan Kaiser. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter , 30(30):305602, 2018

    2018

  16. [22]

    Rost, Yangfan Lu, Dirk Manske, Hidenori Takagi, and Stefan Kaiser

    Daniel Werdehausen, Tomohiro Takayama, Marc H¨ oppner, Gelon Albrecht, Andreas W. Rost, Yangfan Lu, Dirk Manske, Hidenori Takagi, and Stefan Kaiser. Science Advances, 4(3):eaap8652, 2018

    2018

  17. [23]

    Bretscher, Paolo Andrich, Prachi Telang, Anupam Singh, Luminita Harnagea, A

    Hope M. Bretscher, Paolo Andrich, Prachi Telang, Anupam Singh, Luminita Harnagea, A. K. Sood, and Akshay Rao. Nature Communications, 12(1):1699, 2021

    2021

  18. [24]

    Selene Mor, Marc Herzog, Johannes Noack, Naoyuki Katayama, Minoru Nohara, Hide Takagi, Annette Trunschke, Takashi Mizokawa, Claude Monney, and Julia St¨ ahler.Phys. Rev. B, 97:115154, 2018

    2018

  19. [25]

    IU- CrJ, 5(2):158–165, 2018

    Akitoshi Nakano, Kento Sugawara, Shinya Tamura, Naoyuki Katayama, Kazuyuki Matsubayashi, Taku Okada, Yoshiya Uwatoko, Kouji Munakata, Akiko Nakao, Hajime Sagayama, Reiji Kumai, 15 Kunihisa Sugimoto, Naoyuki Maejima, Akihiko Machida, Tetsu Watanuki, and Hiroshi Sawa. IU- CrJ, 5...

    2018

  20. [26]

    Journal of the Physical Society of Japan , 90(7):074706, 2021

    Kazuyuki Matsubayashi, Hidekazu Okamura, Takashi Mizokawa, Naoyuki Katayama, Akitoshi Nakano, Hiroshi Sawa, Tatsuya Kaneko, Tatsuya Toriyama, Takehisa Konishi, Yukinori Ohta, Hiroto Arima, Rina Yamanaka, Akihiko Hisada, Taku Okada, Yuka Ikemoto, Taro Moriwaki, Koji Munakata, A...

    2021

  21. [28]

    Allen Rothwarf and B. N. Taylor. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 19:27–30, 1967

    1967

  22. [29]

    V. V. Kabanov, J. Demsar, B. Podobnik, and D. Mihailovic. Phys. Rev. B , 59:1497–1506, 1999

    1999

  23. [30]

    V. V. Kabanov, J. Demsar, and D. Mihailovic. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 95:147002, 2005

    2005

  24. [31]

    giannozzi

    Quantum-ESPRESSO is a community project for high-quality quantum-simulation soft- ware, based on density-functional theory, and coordinated by p. giannozzi. see http://www. quantum-espresso.org and http://www.pwscf.org,

  25. [32]

    Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter , 21:395502, 2009

    Paolo Giannozzi et al. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter , 21:395502, 2009

    2009

  26. [33]

    Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter , 29:465901, 2017

    Paolo Giannozzi et al. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter , 29:465901, 2017

    2017

  27. [34]

    A. D. Corso. Comput. Mat. Sci. , 95:337, 2015

    2015

  28. [35]

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

    1996

  29. [36]

    A. Subedi. Phys. Rev. Materials , 4:083601, 2020

    2020

  30. [37]

    R Bowler, and A Michaelides

    J Klimeˇ s, D. R Bowler, and A Michaelides. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter , 22:022201, 2009

    2009

  31. [38]

    Zuluaga, C

    T Thonhauser, S. Zuluaga, C. A. Arter, K. Berland, E. Schr¨ oder, and P. Hyldgaard. Phys. Rev. Lett., 115:136402, 2015

    2015

  32. [39]

    Thonhauser, V

    T. Thonhauser, V. R. Cooper, S. Li, A. Puzder, P. Hyldgaard, and D. C. Langreth. Phys. Rev. B , 76:125112, 2007. 16

    2007

  33. [40]

    Berland, V

    K. Berland, V. R. Cooper, K. Lee, E. Schr ¨oder, T Thonhauser, P. Hyldgaard, and B. I Lundqvist. Rep. Prog. Phys., 78:066501, 2015

    2015

  34. [41]

    D. C. Langreth, B. I Lundqvist, S. D Chakarova-K ¨ack, V. R. Cooper, M. Dion, P. Hyldgaard, A. Kelkkanen, J. Kleis, L. Kong, S. Li, P. G. Moses, E. Murray, A. Puzder, H. Rydberg, E. Schr¨ oder, and T. Thonhauser. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter , 21:066501, 2009

    2009

  35. [42]

    Sabatini, E

    R. Sabatini, E. K ¨u¸c¨ukbenli, B. Kolb, T. Thonhauser, and S. D. Gironcoli. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, 24:424209, 2012

    2012

  36. [43]

    V. I. Anisimov, J. Zaanen, and O. K. Andersen. Phys. Rev. B. , 44:943, 2015

    2015

  37. [44]

    Cococcioni and S

    M. Cococcioni and S. de Gironcoli. Phys. Rev. B. , 71:035105, 2005

    2005

  38. [45]

    Sukanya Pal, Arijit Sinha, Luminita Harnagea, Prachi Telang, D. V. S. Muthu, U. V. Waghmare, and A. K. Sood. Phys. Rev. B , 109:155202, 2024

    2024

  39. [46]

    Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter , 18(16), 2006

    Jure Demsar, John L Sarrao, and Antoinette J Taylor. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter , 18(16), 2006

    2006

  40. [47]

    Torchinsky, G

    Darius H. Torchinsky, G. F. Chen, J. L. Luo, N. L. Wang, and Nuh Gedik. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 105:027005, 2010

    2010

  41. [49]

    F. C. Waldermann, Benjamin J. Sussman, J. Nunn, V. O. Lorenz, K. C. Lee, K. Surmacz, K. H. Lee, D. Jaksch, I. A. Walmsley, P. Spizziri, P. Olivero, and S. Prawer. Phys. Rev. B , 78:155201, 2008

    2008

  42. [50]

    Fan Zhang, Xiaolong Wang, Weiwei Gao, and Jijun Zhao. Phys. Rev. Appl. , 17:064016, 2022. 17

    2022

Pith tools

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