Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Ambient-pressure superconductivity onset at 10 K and robust Tc under high pressure in TiNbTaN3 medium-entropy nitride

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TiNbTaN3 is claimed to be the first bulk medium-entropy nitride superconductor, with a 10 K onset and zero resistance at 9.5 K at ambient pressure.

desk verdict New material, real superconductivity at ~10 K, but the bulk proof has a circular magnetization term and a heat-capacity arithmetic slip; referees needed, not a pass. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15864 v1 pith:HDAQJBHK submitted 2025-05-21 cond-mat.supr-con

Lingyong Zeng , Jie Wang , Hongyu Liu , Longfu Li , Jinjun Qin , Yucheng Li , Rui Chen , Jing Song
show 2 more authors
Yusheng Hou Huixia Luo
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords medium-entropynitridesuperconductivityhighpressureTiNbTaN3rock-saltstructuretype-IIsuperconductormultigapbehaviorDFTelectronic
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 reports the first bulk superconductor in the medium-entropy nitride class: $\mathrm{TiNbTaN_3}$, with a resistive onset near 10 K and zero resistance at 9.5 K at ambient pressure. Magnetization, specific-heat, and transport measurements are used to argue the transition is bulk and type-II, with upper critical field $\mu_0H_{c2}(0) = 8.44$ T and lower critical field $\mu_0H_{c1}(0)=25.71$ mT. The superconductivity survives to 54.5 GPa with a shift of only about 1 K in $T_c$, and DFT calculations attribute this resilience to a nearly pressure-independent electronic density of states. If correct, this opens a new material family, medium/high-entropy nitrides, for discovering superconductors made of 4d/5d transition metals plus light elements.

What carries the argument

The central object is the entropy-stabilized rock-salt (NaCl-type, space group $Fm\bar{3}m$) lattice in which Ti, Nb, and Ta occupy the cation site nearly equiatomically while N fills the anion sublattice. The argument for intrinsic superconductivity rests on phase purity established by Rietveld-refined PXRD and homogeneous EDS mapping, with bulk character demonstrated by magnetization and heat capacity. The pressure resilience is carried by DFT (using the virtual crystal approximation) showing that the electronic density of states near the Fermi level barely moves with pressure, while the multigap-like signature is carried by the nonlinear field dependence of the electronic specific heat coefficient $\gamma(H)$.

What would settle it

Perform atomic-resolution transmission electron microscopy and element-specific mapping across grain boundaries to look for a niobium nitride or other impurity phase; alternatively, grow a single crystal or epitaxial film of $\mathrm{TiNbTaN_3}$ and check whether the $T_c\approx 9.5$ K transition and the bulk susceptibility signature persist in the impurity-free material.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that $\mathrm{TiNbTaN_3}$, synthesized by spark plasma sintering from TiN, NbN, and TaN, is a genuine bulk superconductor at ambient pressure with $T_c^{\rm onset}\approx 10$ K and $T_c^{\rm zero}=9.5$ K, making it the first superconducting bulk medium-entropy nitride. The authors show that the demagnetization-corrected susceptibility reaches $-1/4\pi$, that the specific-heat jump $\Delta C_{\rm el}/\gamma T_c \approx 1.2$ is close to the BCS weak-coupling value, and that the upper critical field follows the Ginzburg\textendash Landau form with $\mu_0H_{c2}(0)=8.44$ T. They further report that zero resistance persists from 2.8 to 54.5 GPa with $T_c$ changing by less than 1 K, and support this by DFT calculations showing the band structure and DOS near the Fermi level are almost unchanged under pressure.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion assumes the superconducting transition belongs to the bulk $\mathrm{TiNbTaN_3}$ phase; if the powder patterns and EDS missed a small secondary phase such as a niobium nitride (which can also superconduct near 9–10 K) or an interfacial layer, the observed transition could come from that impurity rather than from the medium-entropy nitride itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TiNbTaN3 becomes the first bulk medium-entropy nitride superconductor, extending the MEA/HEA superconducting family from alloys to nitrides.
  • Its ambient-pressure $T_c$ near 10 K exceeds those of most known medium/high-entropy alloy superconductors at ambient pressure.
  • The superconducting state persists to at least 54.5 GPa with less than 1 K variation in $T_c$, identifying the material as stable under extreme pressure.
  • The field-dependent specific heat suggests multiband superconductivity, which can be tested by phase-sensitive probes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If phase purity holds, the same rock-salt formula can be scanned over other 4d/5d metal combinations, turning 'medium-entropy nitride' into a tunable family for higher $T_c$ rather than a single compound.
  • The near-constant $T_c$ under pressure hints that entropy-stabilized ceramic lattices may decouple superconductivity from lattice compression; that property could matter for superconducting devices operated under mechanical stress.
  • The nonlinear $\gamma(H)$ and the residual $\gamma_r$ are consistent with disorder-induced quasiparticles plus multigap effects, so a muon spin rotation or thermal conductivity experiment on a cleaner sample would decide whether the gap structure is genuinely unconventional.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the synthesis and characterization of a NaCl-type medium-entropy nitride TiNbTaN3, claiming the first observation of bulk superconductivity in a medium-entropy nitride with an ambient-pressure Tc onset of 10 K and zero resistance at 9.5 K. Evidence includes resistivity, magnetization, and specific-heat measurements, along with derived parameters (μ0Hc2(0) = 8.44 T, μ0Hc1(0) = 25.71 mT, GL parameter 22.8). High-pressure resistance measurements show that zero resistance persists up to 54.5 GPa with only about 1 K variation in Tc, and DFT calculations indicate that the band structure and DOS are nearly pressure-independent. The authors further interpret the field dependence of the specific-heat coefficient as suggestive of multigap behavior, while explicitly noting that phase-sensitive experiments are needed.

Significance. If the bulk characterization is correct, this is a noteworthy result: it would be the first bulk medium-entropy nitride superconductor, with a Tc comparable to or higher than most ambient-pressure high-entropy alloy superconductors, and the reported pressure resilience is an interesting materials property. The paper's strengths are the use of multiple independent probes, the explicit acknowledgment that the multigap interpretation requires confirmation, and the effort to corroborate pressure invariance with DFT calculations. However, the load-bearing evidence for the 'bulk' claim currently contains a circular magnetization analysis and a numerical inconsistency in the specific-heat analysis, so the central claim is not yet established to the standard required for a strong publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Figure 2d] The demagnetization factor N is obtained by fitting the low-field M-H slope to the perfect-shielding relation −a = 1/[4π(1−N)]. With N defined in this way, the corrected susceptibility 4πχ(1−N) = −1 is an identity rather than an independent confirmation of bulk superconductivity. A sample with superconducting volume fraction f < 1 yields a smaller |a|, and the fitted N simply absorbs f. Please provide an independent determination of N (for example, from sample geometry and a calibration measurement on a geometrically identical normal-metal or superconducting standard), or report the uncorrected shielding fraction with explicit uncertainties. This is required to certify the 'bulk' claim.
  2. [Section 2, Figure 2f] There is a numerical inconsistency in the Debye analysis. With the reported β = 0.012(7) mJ mol−1 K−4 and n = 6 atoms per formula unit for TiNbTaN3, the stated formula ΘD = (12π^4 nR/5β)^{1/3} gives ΘD ≈ 990 K, not the quoted 673 K; a ΘD of 673 K would require β ≈ 0.038 mJ mol−1 K−4. Because the lattice contribution is subtracted using this β, the extracted γn, the entropy-conserving construction, and hence the reported ΔC/γTc = 1.2 and the subsequent λep = 0.61 are not reliable as presented. Please re-fit the specific-heat data with a consistent lattice model, report the raw Cp/T data and fit residuals, and explicitly state the number of atoms per formula unit used in the Debye formula.
  3. [Section 2, Figures 2d and 2f; Figures S2-S3] The discussion of the residual specific-heat coefficient γr states that the superconducting phase is close to 100%, but this statement rests on the circular magnetization analysis and on the inconsistent specific-heat normalization. Given that PXRD and EDS have finite detection limits, a minority phase or a filamentary superconducting region cannot be excluded on the present evidence. Please quantify the superconducting volume fraction with an independent calibration, for example from the specific-heat anomaly size relative to the normal-state γn or from magnetization calibrated against a known superconductor with a geometrically determined N, and discuss the impurity detection limits quantitatively.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] Many derived parameters (μ0Hc2(0), μ0Hc1*(0), γn, β, η, the exponent n in Δγ = R(μ0H)^n, and λep) are quoted without error bars or fit ranges; please provide uncertainties and the data windows used for each fit.
  2. [Figure 2i caption] The reference data from Refs. [37-40] are not identified by symbol in the caption; please specify which curves correspond to MgB2, LaNiC2, and FeSe so that the comparison is meaningful.
  3. [Section 2, Figure 2g] The statement that the superconducting phase fraction is close to 100% should be revised after the corrected specific-heat and magnetization analyses; the attribution of γr to disorder is plausible but requires the corrected analysis and ideally field-dependent specific-heat evidence.
  4. [Section 4, DFT details] The virtual crystal approximation models the cation site as an average atom; this approximation and its possible effect on the calculated band crossings and pressure invariance should be stated as a limitation in the main text rather than only in the methods section.
  5. [Throughout] There are a few editorial issues: the citation marker in 'Fig. S2 [36]' is confusing and should be corrected, and the conclusion repeats the phrase about phase-sensitive confirmation in consecutive sentences; please streamline.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The magnetization-based bulk confirmation is circular because the demagnetization factor is fitted from the same low-field slope it is then used to correct, but the central discovery of a 10 K transition retains independent transport and specific-heat evidence.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2, magnetization analysis near Figure 2d and Figures S2-S3]
    "The low-field regime was modeled using the linear relation Mfit = aH + b, where the slope a determines the demagnetization factor N via the relation: −𝑎 = 1/(4𝜋(1−𝑁)). This geometry-dependent N value (N = 0.45) was subsequently applied to demagnetization corrections of the susceptibility data in Figure 2d. The corrected diamagnetic susceptibility for TiNbTaN3 achieves 4πχ(1 -N) = -1, thereby confirming bulk superconducting behavior in TiNbTaN₃."

    N is not measured independently; it is constructed by imposing the perfect-shielding slope −a = 1/[4π(1−N)] on the same low-field M–H data whose corrected susceptibility is then reported. For any actual superconducting volume fraction f, the low-field slope is a = −f/[4π(1−N_geom)], so solving for N and substituting back yields 4πχ(1−N) = 4πa(1−N) = −1 identically. The statement 'thereby confirming bulk superconducting behavior' therefore restates the fitting assumption and cannot distinguish a bulk superconductor from a small superconducting fraction or filamentary shielding. The paper later leans on this same susceptibility analysis to assert a phase fraction close to 100%, compounding the circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central observation is an experimental transition at Tc onset = 10 K and Tc zero = 9.5 K, supported by resistivity, magnetization, and a specific-heat anomaly; these direct measurements are not derived from fitted parameters, so the discovery claim itself is not circular. The one genuine circular step is the magnetization-based bulk confirmation: the demagnetization factor N = 0.45 is obtained by forcing the low-field M–H slope to satisfy −a = 1/[4π(1−N)], and the same relation is then used to report 4πχ(1−N) = −1 as evidence of bulk behavior. For any superconducting fraction f, the fitted N absorbs f and the corrected susceptibility is −1 by construction, so this specific evidence cannot certify bulk superconductivity. The specific-heat jump is an independent, non-circular bulk probe, although the reported β and ΘD are numerically inconsistent (β = 0.012(7) mJ mol−1 K−4 with n = 6 implies ΘD ≈ 990 K, not the quoted 673 K), which weakens the quantitative analysis but is a correctness concern rather than a circularity. The paper itself concedes that definitive confirmation of multiband or unconventional superconductivity requires phase-sensitive measurements, and the DFT pressure-invariance calculation is a separate first-principles exercise with stated VCA assumptions, not a restatement of the measured pressures. Self-citations occur mainly as background or as sources for standard values such as μ* = 0.13; none is load-bearing as a uniqueness theorem or imported ansatz. Overall, there is one fitted-input-called-prediction circularity in the magnetization bulk proof, while the central discovery retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is empirical; its load-bearing assumptions are sample phase purity, applicability of standard BCS/GL analysis, and the VCA model for the DFT pressure-invariance argument. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • mu0Hc2(0) = 8.44 T
    Fitted to GL formula from mid-transition resistivity data; used to derive coherence length and upper critical field comparisons.
  • mu0Hc1*(0) = 14.14 mT
    Fitted from Mv-Mfit deviation data and extrapolated to zero temperature; demagnetization-corrected to 25.71 mT.
  • Demagnetization factor N = 0.45
    Extracted from low-field slope of Mv(H); used for susceptibility and Hc1 corrections.
  • gamma_n, beta, eta = 4.204(8) mJ/mol/K2, 0.012(7) mJ/mol/K4, 8.46e-5 mJ/mol/K6
    Fitted to Cp/T data; gamma_n used in normalized specific heat jump and lambda_ep estimate.
  • Delta-gamma power-law exponent n = 0.41 (0 K), 0.68 (1.8 K)
    Fitted to field dependence of Delta-gamma; interpreted as evidence of multigap behavior.
  • Coulomb pseudopotential mu* = 0.13
    Assumed typical value for intermetallics in the McMillan formula; not independently measured.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math BCS and Ginzburg-Landau formulas apply to TiNbTaN3
    Used to extract Hc2, Hc1, coherence length, penetration depth, and normalized jump; standard for conventional type-II superconductors.
  • domain assumption McMillan formula with mu*=0.13 estimates electron-phonon coupling
    Used in Section 2 to estimate lambda_ep=0.61; mu* is assumed typical for intermetallics.
  • domain assumption Virtual crystal approximation adequately models Ti/Nb/Ta disorder
    DFT calculations in Section 4 replace the mixed cation site by a virtual atom; this neglects local chemical disorder and possible site distortions.
  • domain assumption NaCl-type cation site is isoelectronically distributed
    PXRD and EDS suggest random cation occupancy; DFT and baricentric analysis assume no cation ordering.
  • domain assumption Pressure-transmitting medium and ruby calibration are reliable
    High-pressure resistance data rely on NaCl medium and ruby scale; no independent pressure marker or hydrostaticity estimate is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ambient-pressure superconductivity onset at 10 K and robust Tc under high pressure in TiNbTaN3 medium-entropy nitride." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HDAQJBHK

@misc{pith2026250515864,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ambient-pressure superconductivity onset at 10 K and robust Tc under high pressure in TiNbTaN3 medium-entropy nitride},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HDAQJBHK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15864}
}
read the original abstract

Superconductivity has been one of the focal points in medium and high-entropy alloys (MEAs-HEAs) since the first discovery of the HEA superconductor in 2014. Until now, most HEAs' superconducting transition temperature (Tc) has not exceeded 10 K. Here we report the first observation of superconductivity in a bulk medium-entropy nitride (MEN), TiNbTaN3, which shows a Tc of 10 K at ambient pressure. Notably, the electronic specific heat coefficient {\gamma}(H) exhibits nonlinear H-dependence behavior, which is similar to other well-studied multigap superconductors. Furthermore, TiNbTaN3 exhibits extraordinary pressure resilience, maintaining robust superconductivity under high-pressure conditions. Density functional theory (DFT) calculations indicate that pressure exerts a negligible impact on the electronic structures of TiNbTaN3, thereby corroborating the experimental observations. These findings not only advance our understanding of emergent phenomena in entropy-stabilized nitrides but also establish a new material platform for finding more high-Tc superconductors with combinations of 4d/5d transition metal elements and light elements, motivating further investigations into high-entropy functional ceramics for extreme environment applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W. E. Pickett, Rev. Mod. Phys. 2023, 95, 021001

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Luo, Innov

    H. Luo, Innov. Mater. 2025, 3, 100119

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    N. W. Ashcroft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1968, 21, 1748

    work page 1968

  4. [4]

    N. W. Ashcroft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2004, 92, 187002

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. 1957, 108, 1175

    work page 1957

  6. [6]

    A. Zerr, R. Riedel, T. Sekine, J. E. Lowther, W. Y. Ching, I. Tanaka, Adv. Mater. 2006, 18, 2933

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    B. He, C. Dong, L. Yang, X. Chen, L. Ge, L. Mu, Y. Shi, Supercond. Sci. Tech. 2013, 26, 125015

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    B. T. Matthias, J. K. Hulm, Phys. Rev. 1952, 87, 799

    work page 1952

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    X.-J. Chen, V. V. Struzhkin, Z. Wu, M. Somayazulu, J. Qian, S. Kung, A. N. Christensen, Y. Zhao, R. E. Cohen, H.-K. Mao, R. J. Hemley, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2005, 102, 3198

    2005

  2. [10]

    J. Yao, T. Li, A. Zhi, J. Ding, R. Xu, Y. Wang, Z. Zhao, Z. Liu, D. Shen, X. Tian, X. Bai, D. Feng, J. Jiang, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2025, 35, 2417638

    2025

  3. [11]

    Liang, I

    A. Liang, I. Osmond, G. Krach, L.-T. Shi, L. Brü ning, U. Ranieri, J. Spender, F. Tasnadi, B. Massani, C. R. Stevens, R. S. McWilliams, E. L. Bright, N. Giordano, S. Gallego-Parra, Y. Yin, A. Aslandukov, F. I. Akbar, E. Gregoryanz, A. Huxley, M. Peñ a-Alvarez, J.-G. Si, W. Sch...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Vinet, J

    P. Vinet, J. Ferrante, J. H. Rose, J. R. Smith, J. Geophys. Res: Solid Earth 1987, 92, 9319. 15

    1987

  5. [13]

    H. Tou, Y. Maniwa, T. Koiwasaki, S. Yamanaka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2001, 86, 5775

    2001

  6. [14]

    Kasahara, K

    Y. Kasahara, K. Kuroki, S. Yamanaka, Y. Taguchi, Physica C 2015, 514, 354

    2015

  7. [15]

    F. Chen, X. Bai, Y. Wang, T. Dong, J. Shi, Y. Zhang, X. Sun, Z. Wei, M. Qin, J. Yuan, Q. Chen, X. Wang, X. Wang, B. Zhu, R. Huang, K. Jiang, W. Zhou, N. Wang, J. Hu, Y. Li, K. Jin, Z. Zhao, Sci. Bull. 2023, 68, 674

    2023

  8. [16]

    E. P. George, D. Raabe, R. O. Ritchie, Nat. Rev. Mater. 2019, 4, 515

    2019

  9. [17]

    L. Zeng, L. Li, K. Li, R. Chen, H. Luo, NPG Asia Mater. 2024, 16, 60

    2024

  10. [18]

    C. Oses, C. Toher, S. Curtarolo, Nat. Rev. Mater. 2020, 5, 295

    2020

  11. [19]

    Moskovskikh, S

    D. Moskovskikh, S. Vorotilo, V. Buinevich, A. Sedegov, K. Kuskov, A. Khort, C. Shuck, M. Zhukovskyi, A. Mukasyan, Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 19874

    2020

  12. [20]

    Q. Zhou, F. Xu, C. Gao, W. Zhao, L. Shu, X. Shi, M. -F. Yuen, D. Zuo, Ceram. Int. 2023, 49, 25964

    2023

  13. [21]

    J. Luo, K. Zou, B. Wang, X. Yuan, S. An, Z. Ma, K. Shi, S. Deng, J. Xu, W. Yin, W. -H. Wang, C. Wang, Y. Sun, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2024, 34, 2410608

    2024

  14. [22]

    Koželj, S

    P. Koželj, S. Vrtnik, A. Jelen, S. Jazbec, Z. Jagličić, S. Maiti, M. Feuerbacher, W. Steurer, J. Dolinšek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2014, 113, 107001

    2014

  15. [23]

    L. Zeng, X. Hu, M. Boubeche, K. Li, L. Li, P. Yu, K. Wang, C. Zhang, K. Jin, D.-X. Yao, H. Luo, Sci. China Phys. Mech. 2023, 66, 277412

    2023

  16. [24]

    L. Li, H. Tian, X. Hu, L. Zeng, K. Li, P. Yu, K. Wang, R. Chen, Z. Xiang, D. -X. Yao, H. Luo, Supercond. Sci. Tech. 2025, 38, 015025

    2025

  17. [25]

    G. Xiao, W. Yang, Q. Zhu, S. Song, G.-H. Cao, Z. Ren, Scripta Mater. 2023, 223, 115099

    2023

  18. [26]

    Kim, M.-H

    G. Kim, M.-H. Lee, J. H. Yun, P. Rawat, S.-G. Jung, W. Choi, T.-S. You, S. J. Kim, J.-S. Rhyee, Acta Mater. 2020, 186, 250

    2020

  19. [27]

    Jangid, P

    S. Jangid, P. K. Meena, R. K. Kushwaha, S. Srivastava, P. Manna, P. Mishra, S. Sharma, R. P. Singh, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2024, 124

    2024

  20. [28]

    L. Zeng, Z. Wang, J. Song, G. Lin, R. Guo, S.-C. Luo, S. Guo, K. Li, P. Yu, C. Zhang, W.- M. Guo, J. Ma, Y. Hou, H. Luo, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2023, 33, 2301929

    2023

  21. [29]

    L. Zeng, X. Hu, Y. Zhou, M. Boubeche, R. Guo, Y. Liu, S. -C. Luo, S. Guo, K. Li, P. Yu, C. Zhang, W.-M. Guo, L. Sun, D.-X. Yao, H. Luo, Adv. Sci. 2024, 11, 2305054

    2024

  22. [30]

    L. Zeng, X. Hu, Y. Zhou, Y. Liu, M. Boswell, W. Xie, K. Li, L. Li, P. Yu, C. Zhang, W. - M. Guo, D.-X. Yao, H. Luo, Innov. Mater. 2023, 1, 100042

    2023

  23. [31]

    L. Wu, J. Si, S. Guan, H. Zhang, J. Dou, J. Luo, J. Yang, H. Yu, J. Zhang, X. Ma, P. Yang, R. Zhou, M. Liu, F. Hong, X. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2024, 132, 166002

    2024

  24. [32]

    L. Sun, R. J. Cava, Phys. Rev. Mater. 2019, 3, 090301. 16

    2019

  25. [33]

    Zhang, Y

    Z. Zhang, Y. Fang, D. Wang, S. Zhang, G. Mu, F. Huang, J. Mater. Chem. C 2020, 8, 2682

    2020

  26. [34]

    Pristáš, G

    G. Pristáš, G. C. Gruber, M. Orendáč, J. Bačkai, J. Kačmarčík, F. Košuth, S. Gabáni, P. Szabó , C. Mitterer, K. Flachbart, Acta Mater. 2024, 262, 119428

    2024

  27. [35]

    R. Shu, X. Zhang, F. Tasná di, W. Olovsson, S. G. Rao, G. Greczynski, A. le Febvrier, M. Magnuson, P. Eklund, Ann. Phys. 2024, 536, 2300470

    2024

  28. [36]

    B. D. White, J. D. Thompson, M. B. Maple, Physica C 2015, 514, 246

    2015

  29. [37]

    J. Chen, L. Jiao, J. L. Zhang, Y. Chen, L. Yang, M. Nicklas, F. Steglich, H. Q. Yuan, New J. Phys. 2013, 15, 053005

    2013

  30. [38]

    J. T. Chen, Y. Sun, T. Yamada, S. Pyon, T. Tamegai, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser . 2017, 871, 012016

    2017

  31. [39]

    Bouquet, R

    F. Bouquet, R. A. Fisher, N. E. Phillips, D. G. Hinks, J. D. Jorgensen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2001, 87, 047001

    2001

  32. [40]

    Shang, M

    T. Shang, M. Smidman, S. K. Ghosh, C. Baines, L. J. Chang, D. J. Gawryluk, J. A. T. Barker, R. P. Singh, D. McK. Paul, G. Balakrishnan, E. Pomjakushina, M. Shi, M. Medarde, A. D. Hillier, H. Q. Yuan, J. Quintanilla, J. Mesot, T. Shiroka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2018, 121, 257002

    2018

  33. [41]

    L. Zeng, H. Zhou, H. Du, R. Zhong, R. Guo, S. Guo, W. Su, K. L i, C. Zhang, P. Yu, H. Luo, Supercond. Sci. Tech. 2023, 36, 035003

    2023

  34. [42]

    D. Y. Yan, M. Yang, C. X. Wang, P. B. Song, C. J. Yi, Y. G. Shi, Supercond. Sci. Tech. 2021, 34, 035025

    2021

  35. [43]

    D. C. Johnston, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 2013, 26, 115011

    2013

  36. [44]

    Caroli, P

    C. Caroli, P. G. De Gennes, J. Matricon, Phys. Lett. 1964, 9, 307

    1964

  37. [45]

    H. D. Yang, J. Y. Lin, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 2001, 62, 1861

    2001

  38. [46]

    Xiang, C

    T. Xiang, C. Wu, D-wave superconductivity, Cambridge University Press, 2022 ISBN: 9781009218566

    2022

  39. [47]

    J. G. Storey, J. W. Loram, J. R. Cooper, Z. Bukowski, J. Karpinski, Phys. Rev. B 2013, 88, 144502

    2013

  40. [48]

    Gofryk, A

    K. Gofryk, A. S. Sefat, M. A. McGuire, B. C. Sales, D. Mandrus, J. D. Thompson, E. D. Bauer, F. Ronning, Phys. Rev. B 2010, 81, 184518

    2010

  41. [49]

    J. Guo, H. Wang, F. von Rohr, Z. Wang, S. Cai, Y. Zhou, K. Yang, A. Li, S. Jiang, Q. Wu, R. J. Cava, L. Sun, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2017, 114, 13144

    2017

  42. [50]

    Bireckoven and J

    B. Bireckoven and J. Wittig, J. Phys. E: Sci. Instrum. 1988, 21, 841

    1988

  43. [51]

    A. C. Mark, J. C. Campuzano, R. J. Hemley, High Pressure Res. 2022, 42, 137

    2022

  44. [52]

    A. S. Sefat, Rep. Prog. Phys. 2011, 74 124502. 17

    2011

  45. [53]

    X.-W. Yi, Z. Zhang, Z. -W. Liao, X. -J. Dong, J. -Y. You, G. Su, Nano Today, 2022, 42, 101346

    2022

  46. [54]

    Liao, X.-W

    Z.-W. Liao, X.-W. Yi, J.-Y. You, B. Gu, G. Su, Phys. Rev. B 2023, 108, 014501

    2023

  47. [55]

    J. Song, G. Fabbris, W. Bi, D. Haskel, J. S. Schilling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2018, 121, 037004

    2018

  48. [56]

    J. Song, W. Bi, D. Haskel, J. S. Schilling, Phys. Rev. B 2017, 95, 205138

    2017

  49. [57]

    Kresse, J

    G. Kresse, J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B 1993, 47, 558(R)

    1993

  50. [58]

    Kresse, J

    G. Kresse, J. Furthmü ller, Phys. Rev. B 1996, 54, 11169

    1996

  51. [59]

    Kresse, J

    G. Kresse, J. Furthmü ller, Comp. Mater. Sci. 1996, 6, 15

    1996

  52. [60]

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

    1996

  53. [61]

    J. M. Schoen, Phys. Rev. 1969, 184, 858

    1969

  54. [62]

    Bellaiche, D

    L. Bellaiche, D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B 2000, 61, 7877

    2000

  55. [63]

    Eckhardt, K

    C. Eckhardt, K. Hummer, G. Kresse, Phys. Rev. B 2014, 89, 165201

    2014

  56. [64]

    Tian, Front

    F. Tian, Front. Mater. 2017, 4, 313730

    2017

  57. [65]

    Huang, Z

    Z. Huang, Z. Li, D. Wang, Y. Shi, M. Yan, Y. Fu, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 2021, 151, 109859

    2021

  58. [66]

    P. E. Blö chl, Phys. Rev. B 1994, 50, 17953. 18 Supporting Information Ambient-pressure superconductivity onset at 10 K and robust Tc under high pressure in TiNbTaN3 medium-entropy nitride Lingyong Zeng,* Jie Wang, Hongyu Liu, Longfu Li, Jinjun Qin, Yucheng Li, Rui Chen, Jing ...

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.