Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Impact of Thermal Effects on the Current-Tunable Electrical Transport in the Ferrimagnetic Semiconductor Mn$_3$Si$_2$Te$_6$

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 In Mn3Si2Te6, the current-induced insulator-metal transition is a Joule-heating artifact, and the colossal magnetoresistance comes from a spin-tilt-driven reduction of the electronic band gap.

desk verdict Joule-heating diagnosis is solid and important; the quantitative CMR match leans on fitted chemical potential and unmodeled impurity band, so the mechanism claim is plausible, not proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01518 v2 pith:LYLPWV4G submitted 2024-12-02 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-el

Yiyue Zhang , Xin Jin , ZeYu Li , Kunya Yang , Linlin Wei , Xinrun Mi , Aifeng Wang , Xiaoyuan Zhou
show 3 more authors
Xiaolong Yang Yisheng Chai Mingquan He
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el
keywords colossalmagnetoresistanceMn3Si2Te6JouleheatingchiralorbitalcurrentsbandgapreductionBoltzmanntransportspin-orientation-dependentstructurepulsecurrentmeasurement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the current-tunable electrical transport of the ferrimagnetic semiconductor Mn$_3$Si$_2$Te$_6$ is dominated by Joule heating, not by chiral orbital currents. The authors attach a thermometer directly to the crystal and compare continuous direct current with short current pulses; the current-induced insulator-metal transition and the first-order-like $I$--$V$ curves seen in DC mode disappear in pulse mode. They also calculate the resistance from spin-orientation-dependent band structure using Boltzmann transport theory, with the magnetic moments tilted only 10°--30° toward the $c$-axis as neutron diffraction shows occurs in the CMR field range. The calculation reproduces the colossal magnetoresistance by a band gap reduction of about 50 meV together with increased carrier concentration and Fermi velocity. If this is right, the CMR in Mn$_3$Si$_2$Te$_6$ is a field-tunable band-structure effect, and previously reported current control of orbital order needs to be re-examined under controlled thermal conditions.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the spin-tilt-dependent electronic band structure of Mn$_3$Si$_2$Te$_6$ computed by DFT+U for rigid tilts of the Mn moments from the $ab$-plane toward the $c$-axis, combined with the Boltzmann transport equation. The tilt angles are taken from neutron diffraction; as the moment tilts from 10° to 30°, the band gap shrinks by about 50 meV and both the carrier concentration and the Fermi velocity increase because the conduction-band minimum moves down toward the fixed chemical potential. Feeding those bands into the transport equation with a constant relaxation time of 100 fs and a chemical potential fixed to the zero-field resistivity converts a modest spin rotation into the observed nine-order-of-magnitude resistance drop. The same setup—a thermometer attached to the crystal and pulse-versus-DC current comparison—is what exposes Joule heating as the origin of the current-tunable anomalies.

What would settle it

Measure the resistance of a Mn$_3$Si$_2$Te$_6$ crystal at a fixed, directly measured sample temperature while sweeping magnetic field and current with negligible self-heating (for example, using submicrosecond pulses), and check whether the resistance collapse along $\mathbf{H}\parallel c$ still tracks the zero-field resistance-versus-temperature curve; if the collapse persists under fully isothermal conditions with no temperature rise, the thermal-artifact picture for the current-tunable anomalies would be wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the colossal magnetoresistance (CMR) in Mn$_3$Si$_2$Te$_6$ stems primarily from band gap reduction induced by partial polarization of magnetic moments along the magnetic hard axis, and that the apparent current-induced insulator-metal transition cited for chiral orbital currents is a thermal artifact. A thermometer attached to the sample shows that DC currents of a few milliamperes raise the local temperature by tens of kelvin, whereas 0.5 ms current pulses produce neither the transition nor the first-order $I$--$V$ shape. The DC resistivity collapses onto the equilibrium resistance-temperature curve once plotted against the thermometer temperature. First-principles band structures for spin tilts of 10° and 30° show the gap narrowing by about 50 meV, and Boltzmann transport calculations with a 100 fs relaxation time and fixed chemical potential reproduce the measured CMR. The gap between the measured activation energy (6.7 meV) and the calculated gap (~130 meV) is attributed to impurity bands.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative match assumes that a fixed rigid band structure with a constant 100 fs scattering time and a chemical potential pinned to the zero-field resistivity captures the actual transport, even though the measured activation gap (6.7 meV) is far smaller than the calculated gap (~130 meV), so unmodeled impurity states must carry the conduction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The current-induced insulator-metal transition and the first-order-like $I$--$V$ curves observed in DC measurements are thermal artifacts; pulse-current measurements show neither.
  • The CMR in Mn$_3$Si$_2$Te$_6$ is a band-gap effect: partial tilting of the moments toward the $c$-axis shrinks the gap, raises the carrier concentration, and increases the Fermi velocity, so no chiral orbital currents are needed to explain the resistance drop.
  • The field dependence of the resistivity can be predicted from neutron-diffraction tilt angles through the computed band structure, giving a quantitative testable link between spin structure and transport.
  • In semiconducting magnets with high resistance, current-tunable electronic or magnetic transitions should be checked with pulsed current and direct thermometry before assigning them to intrinsic mechanisms.
  • The transport-based evidence for chiral orbital currents in Mn$_3$Si$_2$Te$_6$ loses its support; new experiments under controlled thermal conditions are needed to establish whether such currents exist at all.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the band-edge shift mechanism is correct, the Seebeck and Hall coefficients should change with spin tilt in a calculable way; measuring them as a function of $\mathbf{H}\parallel c$ would test the mechanism independently of the resistance fit.
  • The gap discrepancy (6.7 meV measured versus ~130 meV calculated) suggests conduction may be impurity-dominated; a transport model that includes an impurity band with its own tilt dependence would reveal whether the CMR is intrinsic or partly extrinsic.
  • The same Joule-heating logic likely applies to other high-resistance van der Waals magnets with reported current-controlled switching; pulse-current re-examination could separate thermal from intrinsic effects in those systems as well.
  • Because the calculation assumes a constant 100 fs relaxation time, Hall-mobility measurements at fixed tilt fields would decouple the band-edge contribution from scattering changes and refine the extracted gap reduction.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript re-examines the origin of current-tunable electrical transport and colossal magnetoresistance (CMR) in the ferrimagnetic semiconductor Mn3Si2Te6. The authors mount a Cernox thermometer directly onto the sample and compare DC and pulsed current measurements. They find that apparent current-induced insulator-metal transitions, the suppression of resistivity, and first-order-like I-V characteristics observed in DC mode are dominated by Joule heating: the I-V anomaly collapses onto the measured T_ther-V curve, and pulse measurements show negligible heating and no current-induced transition. They then perform DFT+U calculations for spin orientations tilted between 10° and 30° toward the c-axis and, using the Boltzmann transport equation with a constant relaxation time and a chemical potential adjusted to match the zero-field resistivity, obtain a calculated resistivity that approximately reproduces the experimental CMR. The authors conclude that CMR in Mn3Si2Te6 stems primarily from band-gap reduction induced by partial polarization of magnetic moments along the magnetic hard axis, rather than from chiral orbital currents.

Significance. The experimental part of the paper is strong and timely: the direct thermometer attachment and the DC-versus-pulse comparison provide a clean, internally consistent demonstration that the previously reported current-tunable signatures are thermal artifacts. This calls into question a prominent interpretation in the field and will likely be influential. The computational part aims to provide a positive mechanism (spin-orientation-dependent band-gap reduction) and, if substantiated, would offer a coherent alternative account of the CMR. However, the calculation involves two fitted/assumed inputs (chemical potential and constant relaxation time) and is challenged by the paper's own observation that the measured activation gap (6.7 meV) is far smaller than the calculated intrinsic gap (about 130 meV). Because the central claim about the CMR mechanism depends on this calculation, the theory needs to be strengthened before the conclusion can be regarded as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 4(d) and Eq. (1)] The central claim that CMR stems primarily from band-gap reduction rests on the agreement in Fig. 4(d), but this agreement is not a parameter-free prediction. The chemical potential mu - E_F = 0.136 eV at 10 K is set to match the zero-field resistivity, and tau = 100 fs is a constant input. More importantly, the manuscript itself notes that the measured activation energy is 6.7 meV while the calculated gap at a 10° tilt is about 130 meV, attributing the difference to impurity bands. If conduction is impurity-band-dominated, it is not demonstrated why a tilt-induced motion of the intrinsic conduction-band minimum should control the resistance. The observed CMR could equally be governed by the impurity band's field response or by the field-to-tilt mapping taken from ref. [19]. To make the conclusion load-bearing, the authors should either model the impurity channel, determine the chemical potential independently from Hall or Seebeck data, or show explicitly that the field dependence of the measured activation gap tracks the calculated gap reduction. Without this, the close match in Fig. 4(d) could result from fitting the zero-field point and using externally supplied tilt angles.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The constant relaxation time approximation (tau = 100 fs) is an uncontrolled assumption. The calculated CMR magnitude and field dependence could be affected if tau varies with magnetic field, for example through spin-disorder scattering or magnon scattering, which is plausible in a ferrimagnet near its ordering transition. The authors should justify a field-independent tau, or at least show that the conclusion is robust for a reasonable range of tau values. If the CMR in the calculation comes mostly from the density-of-states and velocity changes, then the constancy of tau is less critical, but the manuscript should state this explicitly.
  3. [Fig. 4(d)] The manuscript does not specify the temperature at which the calculated resistivity is evaluated, nor the detailed mapping from magnetic field to tilt angle used from neutron diffraction [19]. Please clarify whether the comparison is at a fixed temperature (10 K?) and provide the uncertainty in the tilt-angle mapping. Without this information, it is difficult for the reader to judge whether the agreement in Fig. 4(d) is meaningful or fortuitous.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 'Experimental configuration' (paragraph after Fig. 2(a))] There is a stray 'the' in the sentence: 'detailed procedures provided in Supplemental Material the [23]' — 'the' should be removed.
  2. [Sec. 'Experimental configuration' (paragraph after Fig. 2(d))] The phrase 'a current-induced insulator-metal transition is seemly observed' should read 'seemingly observed'.
  3. [References] References [36] and [44] are the same paper (G. K. Madsen, J. Carrete, and M. J. Verstraete, Comput. Phys. Commun. 231, 140 (2018)). This duplicate should be consolidated.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase 'the current-induced insulator-metal transition, supporting the COC-driven CMR mechanism, is likely a consequence of Joule heating effects' has an awkward comma placement; consider splitting into two sentences for clarity.
  5. [Fig. 2(e) and surrounding text] The residual Delta T_ther of about 5 K at 10 mA is stated but not explained; please clarify whether this is due to a temperature gradient between the thermometer and the sample and why this residual does not produce a first-order-like transition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the CMR prediction is derived from external neutron-diffraction tilt angles and DFT band structure, not from the experimental CMR curve.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The central negative claim (Joule heating dominates DC current-tunable transport) rests on direct sample-attached thermometry and pulse-vs-DC comparisons; it does not use the disputed COC mechanism as an input. The central positive claim (CMR from band-gap reduction under spin tilting) is computed from DFT+U band structures at fixed spin tilt angles, with the field-to-tilt mapping taken from independent neutron diffraction [19]. Eq. (1) is evaluated with a constant tau = 100 fs and a chemical potential mu - E_F = 0.136 eV fixed to match the zero-field resistivity; this is a one-point normalization. The field-dependent resistance is not fitted to the CMR data: it is predicted from the calculated tilt-induced band-edge motion, and the resulting carrier concentration (~1e18 cm^-3) is checked against independent Hall data [13,24]. The self-citation [24] is an independent experimental consistency check, not the load-bearing derivation. The paper explicitly acknowledges the impurity-band caveat (measured activation gap 6.7 meV vs ~130 meV calculated gap), which is a quantitative correctness risk rather than circularity. No equation reduces to its own input, and no load-bearing premise is justified solely by an author-overlapping citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two fitted transport parameters (chemical potential and relaxation time), an external tilt-angle map from neutron diffraction, and an unmodeled impurity-band hypothesis. No new particles or fields are introduced. The ledger shows the quantitative CMR reproduction is not a parameter-free prediction.

free parameters (3)
  • Chemical potential offset (mu - EF) = 0.136 eV at 10 K
    Set to ensure calculated zero-field resistivity matches experimental values; this is a fit to one data point and controls absolute resistivity.
  • Relaxation time tau = 100 fs
    Constant relaxation time approximation; not fitted to the MR curve but a chosen value that affects absolute conductivity and the shape of sigma versus temperature.
  • DFT+U parameters (U, J) = not stated in main text (see Supplemental Material)
    Coulomb parameters in DFT+U (refs. 33-35) set the size of the gap; values are chosen from calibration and affect the roughly 130 meV gap and its 50 meV reduction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The constant relaxation time approximation with tau=100 fs is adequate for transport in Mn3Si2Te6.
    Invoked after Eq. (1); no energy or temperature dependence of tau is included.
  • domain assumption The field-dependent spin tilt angle from neutron diffraction [19] can be used to map magnetic field to the collinear spin configurations in the band calculations.
    Stated as 'The magnetic field-dependent spin tilting angle is inferred from previous neutron diffraction experiments [19].' If this mapping is wrong, the computed resistance curve has no relation to the measured field sweep.
  • ad hoc to paper Impurity bands dominate the measured 6.7 meV activation gap but do not change the intrinsic band-gap-reduction mechanism.
    The measured gap is much smaller than the calculated 130 meV gap; the paper attributes this to impurity bands without modeling them, and asserts they are unlikely to be the primary driving force.
  • domain assumption DFT+U band structure at low temperature captures the electronic structure relevant for transport, including Fermi velocity and carrier density changes.
    Used throughout the Boltzmann transport calculation; no vertex corrections, electron-phonon coupling, or disorder effects are included.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of Thermal Effects on the Current-Tunable Electrical Transport in the Ferrimagnetic Semiconductor Mn$_3$Si$_2$Te$_6$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LYLPWV4G

@misc{pith2026241201518,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of Thermal Effects on the Current-Tunable Electrical Transport in the Ferrimagnetic Semiconductor Mn$_3$Si$_2$Te$_6$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LYLPWV4G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01518}
}
abstract

In the ferrimagnetic semiconductor Mn$_3$Si$_2$Te$_6$, a colossal magnetoresistance (CMR) is observed only when a magnetic field is applied along the magnetic hard axis ($\mathbf{H}\parallel c$). This phenomenon suggests an unconventional CMR mechanism potentially driven by the interplay between magnetism, topological band structure, and/or chiral orbital currents (COC). By comparing electrical resistance measurements using continuous direct currents and pulse currents, we found that the current-induced insulator-metal transition, supporting the COC-driven CMR mechanism, is likely a consequence of Joule heating effects. First-principles calculations reveal a pronounced band gap reduction upon tilting the magnetic moments toward the $c$-axis, accompanied by increased carrier concentration and Fermi velocity. Combining spin orientation-dependent electronic structure with Boltzmann transport theory, the calculated electrical resistance closely reproduces the CMR observed experimentally. These findings suggest that the CMR in Mn$_3$Si$_2$Te$_6$ stems primarily from band gap reduction induced by partial polarization of magnetic moments along the magnetic hard axis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01518 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Side view of the crystal structure of Mn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Upper panel: Experimental configuration for electrical transport measurements, showing the Mn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Electronic band structure calculations for spin orientations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    F. Ye, M. Matsuda, Z. Morgan, T. Sherline, Y. Ni, H. Zhao, and G. Cao, Phys. Rev. B106, L180402 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    A. P. Ramirez, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter9, 8171 (1997)

    work page 1997

  3. [2]

    Tokura, Rep

    Y. Tokura, Rep. Prog. Phys.69, 797 (2006)

    work page 2006

  4. [3]

    Y.Shimakawa,Y.Kubo,andT.Manako,Nature 379,53(1996)

    work page 1996

  5. [4]

    M. A. Subramanian, B. H. Toby, A. P. Ramirez, W. J. Marshall, A. W. Sleight, and G. H. Kwei, Science273, 81 (1996)

    work page 1996

  6. [5]

    A.P.RamirezandM.A.Subramanian,Science 277,546(1997)

    work page 1997

  7. [6]

    Zener, Phys

    C. Zener, Phys. Rev.82, 403 (1951)

    1951

  8. [7]

    P. G. de Gennes, Phys. Rev.118, 141 (1960)

    1960

Show all 46 references
  1. [8]

    P. W. Anderson and H. Hasegawa, Phys. Rev.100, 675 (1955)

    1955

  2. [9]

    Vincent, D

    H. Vincent, D. Leroux, D. Bijaoui, R. Rimet, and C. Schlenker, J. Solid State Chem.63, 349 (1986)

    1986

  3. [10]

    25, 7 (1981)

    R.Rimet,C.Schlenker,andH.Vincent,J.Magn.Magn.Mater. 25, 7 (1981)

    1981

  4. [11]

    A.F.May,Y.Liu,S.Calder,D.S.Parker,T.Pandey,E.Cakmak, H. Cao, J. Yan, and M. A. McGuire, Phys. Rev. B95, 174440 (2017)

    2017

  5. [12]

    A. F. May, H. Cao, and S. Calder, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.511, 166936 (2020)

    2020

  6. [13]

    Y. Ni, H. Zhao, Y. Zhang, B. Hu, I. Kimchi, and G. Cao, Phys. Rev. B103, L161105 (2021)

    2021

  7. [14]

    Cao, Nature611, 467 (2022)

    Y.Zhang, Y.Ni, H.Zhao, S.Hakani, F.Ye, L.DeLong, I.Kim- chi, and G. Cao, Nature611, 467 (2022)

    2022

  8. [15]

    J. Seo, C. De, H. Ha, J. E. Lee, S. Park, J. Park, Y. Skourski, E. S. Choi, B. Kim, G. Y. Cho,et al., Nature599, 576 (2021)

    2021

  9. [16]

    J. Wang, S. Wang, X. He, Y. Zhou, C. An, M. Zhang, Y. Zhou, Y.Han,X.Chen,J.Zhou,andZ.Yang,Phys.Rev.B 106,045106 (2022)

    2022

  10. [17]

    Zhang, L.-F

    Y. Zhang, L.-F. Lin, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. B 107, 054430 (2023)

    2023

  11. [18]

    R. A. Susilo, C. I. Kwon, Y. Lee, N. P. Salke, C. De, J. Seo, B. Kang, R. J. Hemley, P. Dalladay-Simpson, Z. Wang, D. Y. Kim, K. Kim, S. W. Cheong, H. W. Yeom, K. H. Kim, and J. S. Kim, Nat. Commun.15, 3998 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Cao, Nat

    Y.Zhang,Y.Ni,P.Schlottmann,R.Nandkishore,L.E.DeLong, and G. Cao, Nat. Commun.15, 3579 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Zhang, G

    Z. Zhang, G. Liu, W. Qi, H. Xie, J. Guo, Y. Du, T. Wang, H. Zhang, F. Zhou, J. Li, Y. Zhang, Y. Yu, F. Fei, X. Xi, and F. Song, AIP Advances14, 035238 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    S. W. Lovesey, Phys. Rev. B107, 224410 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    See supplemental material for experimental and calculation methods, and more detailed data

  16. [24]

    C. Ran, X. Mi, J. Shen, H. Wang, K. Yang, Y. Liu, G. Wang, G. Wang, Y. Shi, A. Wang, Y. Chai, X. Yang, M. He, X. Tong, and X. Zhou, Phys. Rev. B108, 125103 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Y.Chai,P.Lu,H.Du,J.Shen,Y.Ma,K.Zhai,L.Wang,Y.Shi, H.Li,W.Wang,andY.Sun,Phys.Rev.B 104,L100413(2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Zhang, Z

    Y. Zhang, Z. Li, J. Zhang, N. Cao, L. Zhang, Y. Li, S. Liu, X. Zhou, Y. Sun, W. Wang, and Y. Chai, Phys. Rev. B107, 134417 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    P. E. Blöchl, Phys. Rev. B50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  20. [28]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B59, 1758 (1999)

    1999

  21. [29]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B47, 558 (1993)

    1993

  22. [30]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B49, 14251 (1994)

    1994

  23. [31]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Phys. Rev. B54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  24. [32]

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

    1996

  25. [33]

    V.I.Anisimov,J.Zaanen,andO.K.Andersen,Phys.Rev.B 44, 943 (1991). 6

    1991

  26. [34]

    A.Rohrbach,J.Hafner,andG.Kresse,J.Phys.Condens.Matter 15, 975 (2003)

    2003

  27. [35]

    Bengone, M

    O. Bengone, M. Alouani, P. Blöchl, and J. Hugel, Phys. Rev. B 62, 16392 (2000)

    2000

  28. [37]

    Y. Liu, Z. Hu, M. Abeykoon, E. Stavitski, K. Attenkofer, E. D. Bauer, and C. Petrovic, Phys. Rev. B103, 245122 (2021)

    2021

  29. [38]

    Liu and C

    Y. Liu and C. Petrovic, Phys. Rev. B98, 064423 (2018)

    2018

  30. [39]

    C. Bigi, L. Qiao, C. Liu, P. Barone, M. C. Hatnean, G.-R. Siemann, B. Achinuq, D. A. Mayoh, G. Vinai, V. Polewczyk, D. Dagur, F. Mazzola, P. Bencok, T. Hesjedal, G. van der Laan, W. Ren, G. Balakrishnan, S. Picozzi, and P. D. C. King, Phys. Rev. B108, 054419 (2023)

    2023

  31. [40]

    38, 159 (1967)

    D.W.Osborne,H.E.Flotow,andF.Schreiner,Rev.Sci.Instrum. 38, 159 (1967)

    1967

  32. [41]

    Z. L. Sun, A. F. Wang, H. M. Mu, H. H. Wang, Z. F. Wang, T. Wu, Z. Y. Wang, X. Y. Zhou, and X. H. Chen, npj Quantum Mater.6, 94 (2021)

    2021

  33. [42]

    J. Yin, C. Wu, L. Li, J. Yu, H. Sun, B. Shen, B. A. Frandsen, D.-X. Yao, and M. Wang, Phys. Rev. Mater.4, 013405 (2020)

    2020

  34. [43]

    G. K. Madsen and D. J. Singh, Comput. Phys. Commun.175, 67 (2006)

    2006

  35. [44]

    G. K. Madsen, J. Carrete, and M. J. Verstraete, Comput. Phys. Commun.231, 140 (2018)

    2018

  36. [45]

    Das, NPG Asia Mater.10, 923 (2018)

    S.Banik,K.Das,T.Paramanik,N.P.Lalla,B.Satpati,K.Prad- han, and I. Das, NPG Asia Mater.10, 923 (2018)

    2018

  37. [46]

    J. Fang, J. Hu, X. Chen, Y. Liu, Z. Yin, Z. Ying, Y. Wang, Z. Wang, Z. Li, S. Zhu, Y. Xu, S. T. Pantelides, and H.-J. Gao, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 256302 (2025)

    2025

  38. [47]

    Z. Liu, Z. Fang, H. Weng, and Q. Wu, A framework for under- standingcolossalmagnetoresistanceandcomplexresistivitybe- haviors in magnetic semiconductor (2025), arXiv:2503.19029

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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