Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 59 references

Strain-induced valley polarization, topological states, and piezomagnetism in two-dimensional altermagnetic V$_2$Te$_2$O, V$_2$STeO, V$_2$SSeO, and V$_2$S$_2$O

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Four monolayer vanadium oxychalcogenides are predicted to be altermagnetic valleytronic semiconductors whose valleys, band topology, and magnetization can all be controlled by uniaxial strain and doping.

desk verdict Workmanlike DFT prediction of four altermagnetic valleytronic monolayers; the valley picture is likely robust, but the strain-driven topological states rest on SOC-free bands and need checking. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19237 v1 pith:W7P5A2TD submitted 2024-11-28 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Jin-Yang Li , An-Dong Fan , Yong-Kun Wang , Ying Zhang , Si Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall
keywords altermagnetismvalleytronicstwo-dimensionalmagnetsstrainengineeringvalleypolarizationtopologicalsemimetalpiezomagnetismfirst-principlescalculations
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 predicts four two-dimensional vanadium oxychalcogenide monolayers—V2Te2O, V2STeO, V2SSeO, and V2S2O—as altermagnetic semiconductors, a class of collinear magnets whose opposite-spin sublattices are related by crystal symmetry rather than by inversion or translation. In these materials the conduction and valence band edges form a pair of valleys at the X and Y points of the Brillouin zone, connected by a mirror symmetry. Because the two valleys are not linked by time-reversal symmetry, uniaxial strain can break the connecting mirror symmetry, lift the valley degeneracy, and produce valley polarization. The paper further shows that compressive strain drives V2Te2O and V2STeO into topological semimetal states and that, once valley polarization is achieved, hole doping yields a sizable piezomagnetic response. If correct, these monolayers would provide a single material platform in which valley, spin, band topology, and magnetization are all tunable by strain.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the altermagnetic order parameter: the two V atoms with opposite spins are connected by mirror symmetry $M_{110}$, which allows spin-split bands without net magnetization and places two degenerate, spin-opposite valleys at the time-reversal-invariant momenta X and Y. Uniaxial strain breaks $M_{110}$, so the valleys split. The topological states are then protected by residual mirror symmetries: nodal loops around X and Y in V2Te2O are protected by $M_z$, and Weyl points on the Y–M and X–M paths in V2STeO are protected by $M_y$ and $M_x$. Piezomagnetism arises from the combination of strain-induced valley polarization and carrier doping, which moves the Fermi level into the single spin-polarized valley.

What would settle it

A relativistic calculation with spin-orbit coupling at the critical compressive strains for V2Te2O and V2STeO would settle the topological claim: if the crossings at X and Y develop a gap, the nodal loops and Weyl points are artifacts of the nonrelativistic approximation. On the experimental side, spin-resolved ARPES on a strained monolayer (or exfoliated bulk) that fails to show opposite-spin valleys at X and Y would disprove the altermagnetic valley picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that monolayer V2Te2O, V2STeO, V2SSeO, and V2S2O are altermagnets: their two V sublattices carry opposite moments and are connected by the mirror symmetry $M_{110}$, which produces spin-split nonrelativistic bands without net magnetization. The band edges form degenerate valleys at X and Y, with opposite spin character at the two valleys, so the valleys exhibit spin-valley locking. Uniaxial strain breaks $M_{110}$, lifting the X/Y degeneracy in opposite directions for tensile and compressive strain; beyond threshold strains, band crossings appear, namely nodal loops protected by $M_z$ in V2Te2O and Weyl points protected by $M_x$/$M_y$ in V2STeO, each with a Berry phase of $\pi$. With valley polarization in place, hole doping populates only one spin channel, producing a strain-dependent net magnetization (piezomagnetism) whose sign reverses between tensile and compressive strain. The same qualitative strain response is reported for V2SSeO and V2S2O, and HSE06 calculations confirm the main band features and adjust the gap values.

Load-bearing premise

The calculations assume the low-energy band structure is correctly captured by density-functional theory with a Hubbard $U$ of 4 eV and with spin-orbit coupling neglected; if spin-orbit coupling opens a gap at the predicted band crossings, or if a different $U$ changes the band ordering, the topological semimetal states would not be realized as described.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Uniaxial tensile strain increases the global gap and makes the Y-valley gap larger than the X-valley gap; compressive strain does the reverse, so valley polarization is continuously tunable and reverses sign with strain.
  • For V2Te2O, compressive strain beyond about -1.1% closes the spin-down gap at Y, and beyond about -1.7% nodal loops protected by $M_z$ form around both Y and X points with opposite spin channels.
  • For V2STeO, compressive strain of -7% creates a spin-down Weyl point near Y, and at -9% Weyl points appear at both X and Y, each with Berry phase $\pi$ and protected by $M_y$/$M_x$.
  • Hole doping of the strained monolayers produces a net magnetization that grows with doping and strain, saturates at large strain, and reverses between tensile and compressive strains.
  • Phonon spectra and 300 K ab initio molecular dynamics simulations show the monolayers are dynamically and thermally stable, and the main band features survive HSE06 and the tested Hubbard U values.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the predictions hold, these four monolayers would be rare examples where valley, spin, topology, and magnetism respond to one external knob (strain), which could simplify valleytronic devices that currently need magnetic fields or optical pumping.
  • The symmetry mechanism is general: any altermagnet whose valleys sit at time-reversal-invariant momenta connected by a mirror symmetry should show strain-induced valley polarization, so this family may serve as a template for searching other monolayers.
  • A direct experimental test would be spin-resolved ARPES on strained or exfoliated V2Te2O: it should show spin-split bands with opposite spin at X and Y, and uniaxial strain should shift one valley relative to the other.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses first-principles DFT+U calculations to propose four exfoliable monolayers—V2Te2O, V2STeO, V2SSeO, and V2S2O—as two-dimensional altermagnetic semiconductors. The central claims are (i) an altermagnetic ground state with spin-split, spin-valley-locked bands and a pair of valleys at X and Y; (ii) uniaxial strain breaks the mirror symmetry M110 and produces valley polarization; (iii) at larger compressive strains, V2Te2O develops nodal loops and V2STeO develops Weyl points, both protected by mirror symmetries and (for the Weyl points) characterized by Berry phase pi; and (iv) hole doping of the strained, valley-polarized systems yields a net magnetization, interpreted as piezomagnetism. Stability is supported by phonon and AIMD checks, and the zero-strain electronic structure is cross-checked with HSE06.

Significance. If correct, the paper would enlarge the scarce family of 2D altermagnetic valleytronic materials and demonstrate simultaneous strain control of valley, topological, and magnetic properties. The computation is generally careful: convergence parameters are reported, U dependence is tested (in the supplementary material), HSE06 is used at zero strain, symmetry irreps are computed with irvsp, and phonon/AIMD stability checks are included. The main caveat is that the topological semimetal claims rest entirely on nonrelativistic (no-SOC) band structure, with SOC only examined at zero strain; this is a central, fixable gap.

major comments (2)
  1. [Band structure and strain effects (Figs. 5 and 6)] The topological state claims for V2Te2O (nodal loops) and V2STeO (Weyl points) are established entirely from spin-collinear calculations without SOC, while the statement that 'spin-orbit coupling (SOC) has little effect on the band structure and valleys' is only supported at zero strain. The crossings occur under compressive strain, and because V2Te2O has a PBE+U gap of only 0.068 eV, SOC can plausibly open a gap of tens of meV at the nodal loops or Weyl points. Please provide SOC-included band structures at the representative strained conditions (e.g., -5% for V2Te2O and -9% for V2STeO) and recompute the mirror-eigenvalue protection using double-group irreps, or quantitatively bound the SOC-induced gap at the crossing points.
  2. [HSE06 cross-check (band gap values in Section 4)] The HSE06 calculation at zero strain changes the V2Te2O gap from 0.068 eV (PBE+U) to 0.3095 eV, a factor of about 4.5. Since the topological transitions are driven by gap closure under strain, the strain thresholds reported in Figs. 5 and 6 (-1.7% and -5% for V2Te2O; -4%, -7%, and -9% for V2STeO) are not directly validated by the hybrid functional. Please test whether the qualitative topological semimetal state survives in HSE06 for at least one representative strained structure, or discuss quantitatively how the larger initial gap shifts the thresholds.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Berry phase calculation (paragraph after Eq. (1))] The claim that the Weyl points in V2STeO have Berry phase gamma_C = pi is asserted but not demonstrated; please include the integration details or a small figure showing the phase accumulation.
  2. [SOC discussion (Section 4)] The SOC band structures for the unstrained compounds should be described in the main text at least to the extent of quoting the maximum SOC splitting near the gap; that would make the 'little effect' claim more concrete.
  3. [Fig. 5(h)] The schematic of the nodal loops in the Brillouin zone is difficult to interpret; a higher-resolution plot with the two spin-channel loops drawn separately would improve readability.
  4. [Terminology for 2D crossings] The term 'Weyl point' in two dimensions should be qualified as a 2D linear touching point with Berry phase pi, to distinguish it from genuine 3D Weyl points.
  5. [U-dependence test (supplementary material)] The U-dependence test is reported only for V2Te2O; please state whether the other three compounds are expected to be equally insensitive to the choice of U, or provide similar tests for at least one more compound.
  6. [Throughout] Minor typographical issues: 'fermi level' should be capitalized as 'Fermi level', and the sentence about 'magnetic ground state and stable of the monolayer' should read 'magnetic ground state and stability of the monolayer'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central claims are direct DFT outputs, cross-checked with HSE06 and symmetry analyses, without fitted target quantities or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—altermagnetic ground state, spin-split bands, valleys at X/Y, strain-induced valley polarization, nodal-loop/Weyl topological states, and doping-induced piezomagnetism—are obtained by direct first-principles calculations (PBE+U, HSE06 cross-checks, irvsp symmetry labels, Berry-phase computation), not by fitting target quantities or importing the conclusions through self-citation. The Hubbard U=4 eV is taken from prior reports and explicitly tested against other U values and HSE06; this is an input approximation, not a fitted parameter that encodes the predicted band topology or valley splittings. The magnetic ground state is determined by comparing NM/FM/AFM total energies, and the topological protections are verified by calculated mirror eigenvalues and irreducible representations. The only self-citations (Ref. [54], a ferromagnetic Weyl semimetal comparison; Ref. [52], bulk synthesis) are contextual and not load-bearing for the new predictions. The paper's deferral of SOC band structures to the supplementary material and its assertion that 'SOC has little effect' is a correctness/robustness caveat for the nonrelativistic topological claims, not a circular step, because no fitted parameter or prior self-citation forces the topological result. Thus the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and no circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on DFT+U band structures, the assumption that SOC is negligible, the persistence of altermagnetic order under strain and doping, and a rigid-band model for piezomagnetism. These are stated or implicit in the Methods and results sections; none of them is independently verified by external benchmark data in this version.

free parameters (1)
  • Hubbard U for V-3d = 4 eV
    Chosen from previous reports (refs 38, 47, 48), not fitted to the target band structure. It directly controls the size of gaps and the position of band crossings, so the topological-state prediction depends on it. The paper tests other U values in the supplementary material.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PBE+U with U=4 eV gives a sufficiently accurate low-energy band structure for these correlated V-3d systems.
    The altermagnetic semiconductor and topological states are read off from these bands; HSE06 checks only the band gaps in the main text.
  • domain assumption Spin-orbit coupling has negligible effect on the valleys and on the crossing points.
    The main text computes without SOC and asserts small effect, with SOC results only in the supplementary material.
  • domain assumption The AFM altermagnetic order remains the ground state under uniaxial strain up to -5% and -9% and under hole doping.
    The magnetic ground state is established only for the unstrained case in the main text; strained stability and magnetic state are deferred to the supplementary material.
  • domain assumption The rigid-band approximation is valid for estimating doping-induced magnetization.
    Net magnetization is computed as an integral of the spin-resolved DOS up to a shifted Fermi level, assuming the band structure is unchanged by doping.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strain-induced valley polarization, topological states, and piezomagnetism in two-dimensional altermagnetic V$_2$Te$_2$O, V$_2$STeO, V$_2$SSeO, and V$_2$S$_2$O." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W7P5A2TD

@misc{pith2026241119237,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strain-induced valley polarization, topological states, and piezomagnetism in two-dimensional altermagnetic V$_2$Te$_2$O, V$_2$STeO, V$_2$SSeO, and V$_2$S$_2$O},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W7P5A2TD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19237}
}
abstract

Altermagnets (AM) are a recently discovered third class of collinear magnets, and have been attracting significant interest in the field of condensed matter physics. Here, based on first-principles calculations and theoretical analysis, we propose four two-dimensional (2D) magnetic materials--monolayer V$_2$Te$_2$O, V$_2$STeO, V$_2$SSeO, and V$_2$S$_2$O--as candidates for altermagnetic materials. We show that these materials are semiconductors with spin-splitting in their nonrelativistic band structures. Furthermore, in the band structure, there are a pair of Dirac-type valleys located at the time-reversal invariant momenta (TRIM) X and Y points. These two valleys are connected by crystal symmetry instead of time-reversal symmetry. We investigate the strain effect on the band structure and find that uniaxial strain can induce valley polarization, topological states in these monolayer materials. Moreover, piezomagnetism can be realized upon finite doping. Our result reveals interesting valley physics in monolayer V$_2$Te$_2$O, V$_2$STeO, V$_2$SSeO, and V$_2$S$_2$O, suggesting their great potential for valleytronics, spintronics, and multifunctional nanoelectronics applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19237 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Side view of the crystal structure of the monolayer: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Calculated phonon spectrum of (a) V [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The magnetic configurations that we have considered: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Band structure and partial density of states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a)-(e) Band structure evolution under different uniaxial strain along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a)-(f) Band structure evolution under different uni [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Valley gaps at X and Y, as well as the total [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a) Valley gaps at X and Y, as well as the to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X 12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X 12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    H. Bai, L. Han, X. Feng, Y. Zhou, R. Su, Q. Wang, L. Liao, W. Zhu, X. Chen, F. Pan, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 197202 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Karube, T

    S. Karube, T. Tanaka, D. Sugawara, N. Kadoguchi, M. Kohda, and J. Nitta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 137201 (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    R. G. Betancourt, J. Zub´ aˇ c, R. Gonzalez-Hernandez, K. Geishendorf, Z. ˇSob´ aˇ n, G. Springholz, K. Olejn ´ ık, 7 L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, T. Jungwirth, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 036702 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, L.ˇSmejkal, K

    R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, L.ˇSmejkal, K. V` yborn` y, Y. Ya- hagi, J. Sinova, T. Jungwirth, and J. ˇZelezn` y, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 127701 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Shao, S.-H

    D.-F. Shao, S.-H. Zhang, M. Li, C.-B. Eom, and E. Y. Tsymbal, Nat. Commun. 12, 7061 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    A. B. Hellenes, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X 12 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Z. Feng, X. Zhou, L. ˇSmejkal, L. Wu, Z. Zhu, H. Guo, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, X. Wang, H. Yan, P. Qin,et al., Nat. Electron. 5, 735 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Zhu, Z.-Y

    D. Zhu, Z.-Y. Zhuang, Z. Wu, and Z. Yan, Phys. Rev. B 108, 184505 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    ˇSmejkal, R

    L. ˇSmejkal, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, T. Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz8809 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    X. Zhou, W. Feng, R.-W. Zhang, L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, Y. Mokrousov, and Y. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 056701 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    I. I. Mazin, K. Koepernik, M. D. Johannes, R. Gonz´ alez- Hern´ andez, and L.ˇSmejkal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2108924118 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, E. I. Rashba, and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B 102, 014422 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    H.-Y. Ma, M. Hu, N. Li, J. Liu, W. Yao, J.-F. Jia, and J. Liu, Nat. Commun. 12, 2846 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    M. Naka, S. Hayami, H. Kusunose, Y. Yanagi, Y. Mo- tome, and H. Seo, Nat. Commun. 10, 4305 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Krempask` y, L

    J. Krempask` y, L. ˇSmejkal, S. D’souza, M. Hajlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhl ´ ıˇ rov´ a, F. Alarab, P. Constantinou, V. Strocov, D. Usanov, et al., Nature 626, 517 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    J. R. Schaibley, H. Yu, G. Clark, P. Rivera, J. S. Ross, K. L. Seyler, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Nat. Rev. Mater. 1, 1 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    S. A. Vitale, D. Nezich, J. O. Varghese, P. Kim, N. Gedik, P. Jarillo-Herrero, D. Xiao, and M. Rothschild, Small14, 1801483 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Rycerz, J

    A. Rycerz, J. Tworzyd lo, and C. Beenakker, Nat. Phys. 3, 172 (2007)

    2007

  13. [21]

    Gunawan, Y

    O. Gunawan, Y. Shkolnikov, K. Vakili, T. Gokmen, E. De Poortere, and M. Shayegan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 186404 (2006)

    2006

  14. [22]

    D. Xiao, W. Yao, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 236809 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    W. Yao, D. Xiao, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B 77, 235406 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    Xiao, G.-B

    D. Xiao, G.-B. Liu, W. Feng, X. Xu, and W. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 196802 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    T. Cai, S. A. Yang, X. Li, F. Zhang, J. Shi, W. Yao, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B 88, 115140 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    Xiao, M.-C

    D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1959 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    Y. Li, J. Ludwig, T. Low, A. Chernikov, X. Cui, G. Arefe, Y. D. Kim, A. M. Van Der Zande, A. Rigosi, H. M. Hill, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 266804 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Aivazian, Z

    G. Aivazian, Z. Gong, A. M. Jones, R.-L. Chu, J. Yan, D. G. Mandrus, C. Zhang, D. Cobden, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Nat. Phys. 11, 148 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    Srivastava, M

    A. Srivastava, M. Sidler, A. V. Allain, D. S. Lembke, A. Kis, and A. Imamo˘ glu, Nat. Phys. 11, 141 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    MacNeill, C

    D. MacNeill, C. Heikes, K. F. Mak, Z. Anderson, A. Korm´ anyos, V. Z´ olyomi, J. Park, and D. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 037401 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    J. Qi, X. Li, Q. Niu, J. Feng, et al., Phys. Rev. B 92, 121403 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    Jiang, F

    C. Jiang, F. Liu, J. Cuadra, Z. Huang, K. Li, A. Rasmita, A. Srivastava, Z. Liu, and W.-B. Gao, Nat. Commun. 8, 802 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    K. F. Mak, K. He, J. Shan, and T. F. Heinz, Nat. Nan- otechnol. 7, 494 (2012)

    2012

  26. [34]

    H. Zeng, J. Dai, W. Yao, D. Xiao, and X. Cui, Nat. Nanotechnol. 7, 490 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    T. Cao, G. Wang, W. Han, H. Ye, C. Zhu, J. Shi, Q. Niu, P. Tan, E. Wang, B. Liu, et al., Nat. Commun. 3, 887 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Hsu, Y.-L

    W.-T. Hsu, Y.-L. Chen, C.-H. Chen, P.-S. Liu, T.-H. Hou, L.-J. Li, and W.-H. Chang, Nat. Commun. 6, 8963 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    K. F. Mak, D. Xiao, and J. Shan, Nat. Photonics 12, 451 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Y. Zhu, T. Chen, Y. Li, L. Qiao, X. Ma, C. Liu, T. Hu, H. Gao, and W. Ren, Nano Lett. 24, 472 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Zhang, C

    R.-W. Zhang, C. Cui, R. Li, J. Duan, L. Li, Z.-M. Yu, and Y. Yao, arXiv:2306.08902 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B 49, 14251 (1994)

    1994

  33. [41]

    Kresse and J

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

    1996

  34. [42]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Phys. Rev. B50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  35. [43]

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

    1996

  36. [44]

    J. Gao, Q. Wu, C. Persson, and Z. Wang, Comput. Phys. Commun. 261, 107760 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    V. I. Anisimov, J. Zaanen, and O. K. Andersen, Phys. Rev. B 44, 943 (1991)

    1991

  38. [46]

    S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. J. Humphreys, and A. P. Sutton, Phys. Rev. B 57, 1505 (1998)

    1998

  39. [47]

    Cheng, S

    X. Cheng, S. Xu, F. Jia, G. Zhao, M. Hu, W. Wu, and W. Ren, Phys. Rev. B 104, 104417 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    J. Xing, H. Cao, A. Paul, C. Hu, H.-H. Wang, Y. Luo, R. Chaklashiya, J. M. Allred, S. Brown, T. Birol, et al., Phys. Rev. Materials 4, 094414 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    J. Heyd, G. E. Scuseria, and M. Ernzerhof, J. Chem. Phys. 118, 8207 (2003)

    2003

  42. [50]

    Nos´ e, J

    S. Nos´ e, J. Chem. Phys.81, 511 (1984)

    1984

  43. [51]

    Togo and I

    A. Togo and I. Tanaka, Scr. Mater. 108, 1 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    Ablimit, Y.-L

    A. Ablimit, Y.-L. Sun, E.-J. Cheng, Y.-B. Liu, S.-Q. Wu, H. Jiang, Z. Ren, S. Li, and G.-H. Cao, Inorg. Chem. 57, 14617 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    J.-Y. You, C. Chen, Z. Zhang, X.-L. Sheng, S. A. Yang, and G. Su, Phys. Rev. B 100, 064408 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    S. Li, Q. Wang, C. Zhang, P. Guo, and S. A. Yang, Phys. Rev. B 104, 085149 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Tan, Z.-F

    C.-Y. Tan, Z.-F. Gao, H.-C. Yang, K. Liu, P.-J. Guo, and Z.-Y. Lu, arXiv:2406.16603 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Jaime, A

    M. Jaime, A. Saul, M. Salamon, V. Zapf, N. Harrison, T. Durakiewicz, J. Lashley, D. Andersson, C. Stanek, J. Smith, et al., Nat. Commun. 8, 99 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    Ikhlas, S

    M. Ikhlas, S. Dasgupta, F. Theuss, T. Higo, S. Kittaka, B. Ramshaw, O. Tchernyshyov, C. Hicks, and S. Nakat- suji, Nat. Phys. 18, 1086 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Reimers, L

    S. Reimers, L. Odenbreit, L. ˇSmejkal, V. N. Strocov, P. Constantinou, A. B. Hellenes, R. Jaeschke Ubiergo, W. H. Campos, V. K. Bharadwaj, A. Chakraborty, et al., Nat. Commun. 15, 2116 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Zhang, X

    F. Zhang, X. Cheng, Z. Yin, C. Liu, L. Deng, Y. Qiao, Z. Shi, S. Zhang, J. Lin, Z. Liu, et al., arXiv:2407.19555 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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