Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Electronic structures and magnetism in van der Waals flat-band material Ni$_{3}$GeTe$_{2}$

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 ↗

Pith's one-line read Ni3GeTe2 hosts flat bands near the Fermi level that originate from geometric frustration of the Ni triangular lattice, with Ni vacancies suppressing the Fermi-level density of states.

desk verdict First DFT+DMFT study of Ni3GeTe2 gives a plausible paramagnetic picture, but the flat-band-from-frustration claim is asserted, not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02498 v2 pith:N6FDJTUI submitted 2025-06-03 cond-mat.str-el

Yuanji Xu , Xintao Jin , Haoyuan Tang , Fuyang Tian This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords Ni3GeTe2flatbandsgeometricfrustrationDFT+DMFTparamagnetismHundphysicsMottvanderWaalsmaterials
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 tries to establish where Ni3GeTe2's unusual low-temperature properties come from. Using density functional theory plus dynamical mean-field theory, it argues that the flat bands near the Fermi level are a geometric effect of the layered triangular lattice formed by the Ni atoms, with electronic correlations only renormalizing them further. It also argues that the Ni d-electrons sit in an intermediate regime between Hund and Mott physics, so that both U and J control the magnetic response, and that strong local-moment fluctuations keep the material paramagnetic at low temperature. Finally, it claims that the small measured Sommerfeld coefficient is explained by Ni vacancies: removing roughly three percent of the Ni electrons shifts the Fermi level into a dip and sharply reduces the density of states.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the layered triangular lattice of Ni atoms in Ni3GeTe2, which is geometrically frustrated: the Ni1 layer forms a perfect triangular lattice, while Ni2 has Ge in the interstices. The machinery is magnetic DFT+DMFT with two impurity solvers for the two distinct Ni Wyckoff sites, which captures dynamical spin fluctuations and the dual localized-itinerant character of Ni-d electrons. A fixed-spin-moment Stoner analysis, with $E(M)=E_0+aM^2+bM^4$, gives $I N(E_F)=0.74$ for Ni3GeTe2 versus values above 1 for the Fe-based sister compounds, explaining the non-magnetic ground state. The flat bands and van Hove singularities are already visible in pure DFT, which is the key evidence that they originate from geometry rather than correlation; correlation then sharpens and renormalizes them, and the sharp peak-and-dip structure in the DOS is what makes the Fermi level so sensitive to vacancies.

What would settle it

Angle-resolved photoemission and specific-heat measurements on Ni3GeTe2 crystals with controlled Ni-vacancy content could settle the claim: if the sharp Fermi-level peak and its suppression by vacancy doping do not appear, or if the Sommerfeld coefficient does not move toward the reported 9 mJ/mol K$^2$ when vacancies are introduced, the central mechanism fails. A neutron-scattering search for the predicted strong local spin fluctuations would provide a second check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that the flat bands appearing close to the Fermi level in Ni3GeTe2 are an intrinsic consequence of geometric frustration of the triangular Ni lattice, and they are then renormalized by correlations of the Ni-d electrons, with a band renormalization factor $Z^{-1}$ of about 1.2 to 1.5. The magnetic moment of the Ni atoms responds strongly to both the Coulomb interaction $U$ and Hund's coupling $J$, with moments developing only for $U \gtrsim 4$ eV or $J \gtrsim 0.8$ eV, which places the system between Hundness and Mottness rather than deep in either regime. Even when long-range order is absent, the local moments are large and fluctuate strongly, consistent with the observed low-temperature paramagnetism. Hole-doping by about three percent, which models the experimentally observed Ni vacancies, shifts the Fermi level into a dip in the density of states and suppresses the Fermi-level DOS from a Sommerfeld coefficient of about 24 mJ/mol K$^2$ toward the measured value near 9 mJ/mol K$^2$. The paper concludes that the sharp peak-and-dip structure makes the Fermi surface unstable, so defects, doping, or strain can tune the properties of this van der Waals material.

Load-bearing premise

The vacancy result assumes that removing about three percent of the electrons reproduces real Ni vacancies, with no local lattice relaxation, disorder, or impurity scattering taken into account.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ni3GeTe2 becomes a test case for flat-band physics in a paramagnetic correlated metal, distinct from the ferromagnetic sisters Fe3GeTe2 and Fe3GaTe2.
  • Small changes in electron count, whether from Ni vacancies, doping, or pressure, can tune the Fermi-level density of states and could potentially drive the system toward magnetic order.
  • The large local moments with zero long-range order imply strong spin fluctuations that should be observable in neutron scattering.
  • The flat bands are a geometry-driven feature, so related triangular-lattice van der Waals compounds with different d-electron fillings may show similar Fermi-level peaks.
  • A high Fermi-level DOS does not by itself imply magnetism: the Stoner parameter is material-dependent, so flat bands alone are not sufficient to satisfy the Stoner criterion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The vacancy calculation treats a three-percent electron reduction as equivalent to real Ni vacancies; a direct supercell calculation with an explicit vacancy, including lattice relaxation, would test whether the Fermi-level dip is as sharp as claimed.
  • If the intermediate Hund-Mott regime is correct, uniaxial strain or pressure, which effectively changes $U$ and $J$, could be a controlled route to switch Ni3GeTe2 between paramagnetic and magnetically ordered states.
  • Experimentally, angle-resolved photoemission on clean and vacancy-controlled Ni3GeTe2 should show the predicted flat-band peak and its doping-induced suppression, providing a direct test of the paper's central mechanism.
  • The geometry-driven flat-band picture suggests other two-dimensional materials with perfect triangular Ni layers might share the vacancy-sensitive Fermi-level behavior, making defect engineering a general tuning knob.
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 paper presents DFT and DFT+DMFT calculations for the van der Waals material Ni3GeTe2. The central claims are that (i) the Fermi-level flat bands originate from geometric frustration of the Ni triangular lattice, renormalized by electronic correlations; (ii) the Ni atoms sit in an intermediate regime between Hund and Mott physics, with substantial local moments but no long-range order, yielding low-temperature paramagnetism; and (iii) Ni vacancies suppress the density of states at the Fermi level, consistent with the small experimental Sommerfeld coefficient. The authors use standard methods (WIEN2k and eDMFT with CT-HYB impurity solvers), scan U and J, and compare with the sister compounds Fe3GeTe2 and Fe3GaTe2.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, the paper provides a coherent explanation for the distinct low-temperature paramagnetism and small Sommerfeld coefficient of Ni3GeTe2 relative to its ferromagnetic sister compounds, and it highlights the interplay of geometric frustration, correlation, and vacancy effects in this family. The work uses well-established DFT+DMFT machinery, treats the two inequivalent Ni sites separately, and includes explicit U-J scans, local-moment analysis, and self-energy renormalization estimates. These are genuine strengths. The main significance is limited, however, by the indirect evidence for the flat-band/frustration attribution, the rigid-band treatment of vacancies, and the partially experiment-informed choice of U and J.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results and discussion, Fig. 3(b) and surrounding text] The central claim that the flat bands near the Fermi level originate from geometric frustration of the Ni triangular lattice is not demonstrated. The evidence cited—flat bands in the pure DFT DOS, higher Ni1 DOS, and persistence at high temperature—is indirect. A single-orbital nearest-neighbor triangular lattice has finite bandwidth and no exact flat band; geometric frustration alone does not guarantee one. To establish the claimed mechanism, the authors should provide a Wannier/tight-binding construction that isolates the Ni1 triangular-sublattice hopping and shows that the flat band survives when only that sublattice is retained, identifying the interference or hopping pattern responsible.
  2. [Computational details, vacancy paragraph; Fig. 3(c)] The Ni vacancy is modeled by reducing the total electron number by about 3% rather than by constructing an explicit defect supercell. This rigid-band-like approximation neglects local lattice relaxation, disorder, and impurity scattering. The claim that the resulting sharp decrease in D(EF) matches the small experimental Sommerfeld coefficient is therefore not quantitatively supported; the cited prior work on sister compounds does not transfer automatically to Ni3GeTe2. An explicit supercell calculation—or at least a systematic comparison of the rigid-band shift against a supercell with a real vacancy—is needed before the vacancy result can be accepted as a quantitative prediction.
  3. [Results and discussion, parameter choice paragraph] The adoption of U=5 eV and J=0.5 eV is justified in part by the experimental absence of spontaneous magnetization ("Given that experimental studies report no spontaneous magnetization..., we adopt U=5 eV and J=0.5 eV"). This creates a partial circularity in the paramagnetic DFT+DMFT result, since the chosen parameters are selected to reproduce the paramagnetic state that the calculations then confirm. The U-J scans in Fig. 2 mitigate this concern, but an independent estimate of U and J (e.g., from constrained RPA or comparison with photoemission line shapes) would be needed to place the system unambiguously in the correct correlation regime.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Results and discussion, Table I caption] The phrase "an ferrimagnetic state" should be "a ferrimagnetic state."
  2. [Computational details, vacancy paragraph] The text says "the total electron number to account for the presence of Ni vacancy" but the system is Ni2.97GeTe2; consider using "a Ni vacancy" or "Ni vacancies" consistently.
  3. [Results and discussion, Stoner parameter analysis] The Stoner parameter results in Fig. 1(d) are presented without error bars or a statement of how N(EF) is defined (per formula unit vs. per atom); please clarify units and the polynomial fit uncertainty.
  4. [Results and discussion, Fig. 2(e)] The schematic in Fig. 2(e) would benefit from a concrete definition of the Hundness and Mottness axes; as drawn, it is not quantitative enough to support the intermediate-regime conclusion.
  5. [Introduction and results] The paper relies heavily on the authors' prior DFT+DMFT studies of Fe3GeTe2 and Fe3GaTe2 (Refs. [18,19]) for method validation; a sentence explicitly stating that those works established the methodological reliability for this family would help the reader.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Mild circularity: the interaction parameters U=5 eV and J=0.5 eV are chosen with knowledge of the experimental paramagnetic state, so the DMFT paramagnetic result at that operating point is calibrated rather than predicted.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Results and discussion, paragraph following Fig. 2 and Fig. 3(a)]
    "Lastly, it is important to note that the appropriate Coulomb interaction U for Ni-based compounds is typically less than 5 eV [29]. Given that experimental studies report no spontaneous magnetization in Ni3GeTe2, we adopt U = 5 eV and J = 0.5 eV for the subsequent DFT+DMFT calculations in this work. ... Figure 3(a) illustrates the partial density of states of Ni3GeTe2 at 100 K obtained from DFT+DMFT calculations, where the system converges to a non-magnetic state."

    The paper states that the experimental absence of spontaneous magnetization was a reason for choosing U=5 eV and J=0.5 eV. It then reports that at these parameters the DFT+DMFT calculation converges to a non-magnetic state and frames low-temperature paramagnetism as a result ('our results show that Ni atoms experience significant spin fluctuations in their local moments, maintaining paramagnetism at low temperatures'). The paramagnetic outcome at the adopted operating point is therefore not an out-of-sample prediction; it is a target used to calibrate the interaction parameters. Some independent content remains in the U-J scan and in the local-moment/self-energy analysis, so the circularity is mild rather than total.

full rationale

The paper's main structural claims (flat bands renormalized by correlation, Ni between Hund and Mott physics, vacancy-induced DOS suppression) are supported by explicit DFT+DMFT calculations with standard codes and are not circular: the U-J dependence is mapped over a parameter range, local moments come from the impurity solver, and the vacancy doping level is taken from the experimental stoichiometry rather than fitted to the Sommerfeld coefficient. The frustration attribution of the flat bands is an interpretation that is under-argued (no tight-binding/Wannier construction isolating the Ni triangular sublattice), but under-argument is a correctness concern, not a definitional circularity. The one genuine circular element is the calibration of U and J with knowledge of the experimental paramagnetic state: the paper explicitly says it adopts U=5 eV and J=0.5 eV because experiments report no spontaneous magnetization, and then presents the resulting non-magnetic DMFT state at 100 K as a finding. This makes the paramagnetic result partially forced by construction, though the broader 'intermediate between Hund and Mott' conclusion rests on the full parameter scan and survives as independent content. Self-citations to the authors' prior work on Fe3GeTe2/Fe3GaTe2 are used as motivation and methodological precedent, not as a uniqueness argument or as the sole support for a central premise, so they do not add circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard DFT and DMFT approximations plus two material-specific modeling choices: the adopted U and J values, and the rigid-band electron-count reduction for vacancies. No new entities are introduced. The parameter dependence is mapped explicitly, which mitigates but does not remove the sensitivity of the conclusions to these choices.

free parameters (4)
  • Hubbard U (Ni d) = U = 5.0 eV adopted; scanned in DMFT
    Coulomb repulsion on Ni d orbitals; value taken from literature for Ni compounds and chosen for systematic calculations; magnetic moments depend strongly on U.
  • Hund coupling J (Ni d) = J = 0.5 eV adopted; scanned in DMFT
    Hund's rule exchange; J choice affects local moments and ordered moments; scanned in DMFT.
  • DFT+U effective U_eff = 3 to 7 eV
    Used in DFT+U calculations to show transition from nonmagnetic to ferrimagnetic at U_eff >= 5 eV.
  • vacancy-induced electron count reduction (delta) = Ni2.97GeTe2, about 3% electron removal
    Rigid-band proxy for Ni vacancy; experimental delta about 0.05 is not used exactly, and the approximation is not validated for this material.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption PBE-DFT provides a reliable starting electronic structure for Ni3GeTe2.
    Used for all DFT and DFT+DMFT calculations; no hybrid functionals or self-interaction corrections beyond DFT+U considered.
  • domain assumption DMFT with a local, momentum-independent self-energy and two impurity solvers adequately describes Ni d-electron correlations.
    Standard for this family; nonlocal correlations and vertex corrections are neglected, which could matter for flat bands.
  • domain assumption The exact double-counting subtraction scheme is valid.
    The correction in eDMFT affects occupations and moments; no cross-check with other double-counting schemes is shown.
  • ad hoc to paper Reducing total electron number mimics Ni vacancies in Ni3GeTe2.
    Computational details: 'we reduced the total electron number to account for the presence of Ni vacancy'; relies on refs [13,30] from sister compounds, not validated here.
  • domain assumption The Stoner model with E(M)=E0+aM^2+bM^4 determines magnetic stability.
    Used to compute Stoner criterion; assumes smooth energy-momentum curve and no other instabilities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electronic structures and magnetism in van der Waals flat-band material Ni$_{3}$GeTe$_{2}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N6FDJTUI

@misc{pith2026250602498,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electronic structures and magnetism in van der Waals flat-band material Ni$_3$GeTe$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N6FDJTUI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02498}
}
abstract

The study of magnetism in two-dimensional materials has garnered significant interest, driven by fundamental investigations into low-dimensional magnetic phenomena and their potential for applications in spintronic devices. Through dynamical mean-field theory calculations, we demonstrate that Ni$_{3}$GeTe$_{2}$ exhibits flat-band characteristics resulting from the geometric frustration of its layered triangular lattice. These flat bands are further renormalized due to electronic correlation. Our calculations reveal that the magnetic order of Ni atoms is significantly influenced by both the Coulomb interaction and Hund's coupling, indicating that the physics of Ni atoms is situated in an intermediate region between Hundness and Mottness. Additionally, our results show that Ni atoms experience significant spin fluctuations in their local moments, maintaining paramagnetism at low temperatures. Furthermore, we investigate the effect of vacancies, finding a substantial suppression of the density of states at the Fermi level. The physical mechanisms uncovered by our study provide a comprehensive understanding of the novel properties exhibited in this material.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02498 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Crystal structure of Ni [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Magnetic moments (filled symbols) of Ni1 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) The partial density of states of Ni [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) The highest probability atomic configurations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., Hanna J., Jang K

    Kajale S. N., Hanna J., Jang K. and Sarkar D., Nano Res., 17 (2024) 743–762

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    O., Chshiev M., Couet S., Dieny B., Dlubak B., Fert A., Garello K., Jamet M., Jeong D.- E., Lee K., Lee T., Martin M.-B., Kar G

    Yang H., Valenzuela S. O., Chshiev M., Couet S., Dieny B., Dlubak B., Fert A., Garello K., Jamet M., Jeong D.- E., Lee K., Lee T., Martin M.-B., Kar G. S., S´ en´ eor P., Shin H.-J. and Roche S., Nature, 606 (2022) 663–673

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    and Zhang X., Science, 363 (2019) eaav4450

    Gong C. and Zhang X., Science, 363 (2019) eaav4450

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    and Chang H.,Nat

    Zhang G., Guo F., Wu H., Wen X., Yang L., Jin W., Zhang W. and Chang H.,Nat. Commun., 13 (2022) 5067

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    F., Wu W., Cobden D

    Fei Z., Huang B., Malinowski, P., Wang W., Song T., Sanchez J., Yao W., Xiao D., Zhu X., May A. F., Wu W., Cobden D. H., Chu J.-H. and Xu X., Nat. Mater., 17 (2018) 778-782

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Z., Sun Z., Yi Y., Wu Y., Wu S., Zhu J., Wang J., Chen X

    Deng Y., Yu Y., Song Y., Zhang J., Wang N. Z., Sun Z., Yi Y., Wu Y., Wu S., Zhu J., Wang J., Chen X. H. and Zhang Y., Nature, 563 (2018) 94-99

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    S., Cezar J

    Zhu J.-X., Janoschek M., Chaves D. S., Cezar J. C., Du- rakiewicz T., Ronning F., Sassa Y., Mansson M., Scott B. L., Wakeham N., Bauer E. D. and Thompson J. D., Phys. Rev. B, 93 (2016) 144404

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    and Lai, X., Sci

    Zhang Y., Lu H., Zhu X., Tan S., Feng W., Liu Q., Zhang W., Chen Q., Liu Y., Luo X., Xie D., Luo L., Zhang Z. and Lai, X., Sci. Adv., 4 (2018) eaao6791

    work page 2018

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Zhao M., Chen B.-B., Xi Y., Zhao Y., Xu H., Zhang H., Cheng N., Feng H., Zhuang J., Pan F., Xu X., Hao W., Li W., Zhou S., Dou S. X. and Du Y., Nano Lett., 21 (2021) 6117-6123

    2021

  2. [10]

    A., Le Tacon M

    Corasaniti M., Yang R., Sen K., Willa K., Merz M., Haghighirad A. A., Le Tacon M. and Degiorgi L., Phys. Rev. B, 102 (2020) 161109(R)

    2020

  3. [11]

    J., Aleksandrov K., Reiner C., Kienle L

    Deiseroth H. J., Aleksandrov K., Reiner C., Kienle L. and Kremer R. K., Eur. J. Inorg. Chem., 2006 (2006) 1561-1567

    2006

  4. [12]

    M., Esteras D

    Ruiz A. M., Esteras D. L., L´ opez-Alcal´ a D., Baldov ´ ı J. J., Nano Lett., 24 (2024) 7886-7894

    2024

  5. [13]

    D., Hwang C., Lei H., Mo S

    Lee J.-E., Yan S., Oh S., Hwang J., Denlinger J. D., Hwang C., Lei H., Mo S. K., Park S. Y. and Ryu H., Nano Lett., 23, (2023) 11526-11532

    2023

  6. [14]

    and Sanyal B., npj Comput

    Ghosh S., Ershadrad S., Borisov V. and Sanyal B., npj Comput. Mater., 9 (2023) 86. 7

    2023

  7. [15]

    and Wen, J., Phys

    Bao S., Wang W., Shangguan Y., Cai Z., Dong Z.-Y., Huang Z., Si W., Ma Z., Kajimoto R., Ikeuchi K., Yano S.-i., Yu S.-L., Wan X., Li J.-X. and Wen, J., Phys. Rev. X, 12 (2022) 011022

    2022

  8. [16]

    G., Huang J., Guo Y., Wu S., Hu C., Yue Z., Shi Y., Basak R., Ren Z., Yilmaz T., Vescovo E., Jozwiak C., Bostwick A., Rotenberg E., Fedorov A., Denlinger J

    Wu H., Hu C., Xie Y., Jang B. G., Huang J., Guo Y., Wu S., Hu C., Yue Z., Shi Y., Basak R., Ren Z., Yilmaz T., Vescovo E., Jozwiak C., Bostwick A., Rotenberg E., Fedorov A., Denlinger J. D., Klewe C., Shafer P., Lu D., Hashimoto M., Kono J., Frano A., Birgeneau R. J., Xu X., Z...

    2024

  9. [17]

    W., Duan S

    Xu X., Li Y. W., Duan S. R., Zhang S. L., Chen Y. J., Kang L., Liang A. J., Chen C., Xia W., Xu Y., Mali- nowski P., Xu X. D., Chu J.-H., Li G., Guo Y. F., Liu Z. K., Yang L. X. and Chen, Y. L., Phys. Rev. B, 101 (2020) 201104(R)

    2020

  10. [18]

    and Tian, F., Commun

    Xu Y., Wang Y., Jin X., Liu H., Liu Y., Song H. and Tian, F., Commun. Phys., 7 (2024) 381

    2024

  11. [19]

    and Tian, F., Phys

    Xu Y., Jin X., Xiang J., Zhang H. and Tian, F., Phys. Rev. B, 111 (2025) 155142

    2025

  12. [20]

    Blaha P., Schwarz K., Madsen G. K. H., Kvasnicka D., Luitz J., Laskowski R., Tran F. and Marks L. D., WIEN2k: An augmented plane wave plus local orbitals program for calculating crystal properties(Vienna Uni- versity of Technology, Austria) 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    P., Burke K

    Perdew J. P., Burke K. and Ernzerhof M., Phys. Rev. Lett., 77 (1996) 3865-3868

    1996

  14. [22]

    I., Solovyev I

    Anisimov V. I., Solovyev I. V., Korotin M. A., Czyzyk M. T. and Sawatzky G. A., Phys. Rev. B, 48 (1993) 16929- 16934

    1993

  15. [23]

    and Kim K., Phys

    Haule K., Yee C.-H. and Kim K., Phys. Rev. B, 81 (2010) 195107

    2010

  16. [24]

    Georges A., Kotliar G., Krauth W., Rozenberg M. J., Rev. Mod. Phys., 68 (1996) 13-125

    1996

  17. [25]

    Y., Haule K., Oudovenko V

    Kotliar G., Savrasov S. Y., Haule K., Oudovenko V. S., Parcollet O. and Marianetti C. A., Rev. Mod. Phys., 78 (2006) 865-951

    2006

  18. [26]

    and Millis A

    Werner P., Comanac A., de’ Medici L., Troyer M. and Millis A. J., Phys. Rev. Lett., 97 (2006) 076405

    2006

  19. [27]

    Haule K., Phys. Rev. B, 75 (2007) 155113

    2007

  20. [28]

    Haule K., Phys. Rev. B, 115 (2015) 196403

    2015

  21. [29]

    and Yang Y., Phys

    Cao Y. and Yang Y., Phys. Rev. B, 109 (2024) L081105

    2024

  22. [30]

    W., Yoon H., Jeong M

    Jang S. W., Yoon H., Jeong M. Y., Ryee S., Kim H.-S. and Han M. J., Nanoscale, 12 (2020) 13501-13506

    2020

  23. [31]

    and Gubernatis J

    Jarrell M. and Gubernatis J. E., Phys. Rep., 269 (1996) 133-195

    1996

  24. [32]

    J., Ryee S

    Kim T. J., Ryee S. and Han M. J., npj Comput. Mater., 8 (2022) 245

    2022

  25. [33]

    K¨ ubler J.,Theory of Itinerant Electron Magnetism, rev. ed. (Oxford University Press, New York, 2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    and Mohn P., Phys

    Sieberer M., Khmelevskyi S. and Mohn P., Phys. Rev. B, 74 (2006) 014416

    2006

  27. [35]

    A., Kent P

    Yi J., Zhuang H., Zou Q., Wu Z., Cao G., Tang S., Calder S. A., Kent P. R. C., Mandrus D. and Gai Z., 2D Mater., 4 (2017) 011005

    2017

  28. [36]

    P., Haule K

    Yin Z. P., Haule K. and Kotliar G., Nat. Mater., 10 (2011) 932-935

    2011

  29. [37]

    Rosa P. F. S. and Ronning F., Nat. Phys., 20 (2024) 539-540

    2024

  30. [38]

    G., Bernevig B

    Checkelsky J. G., Bernevig B. A., Coleman P., Si Q. and Paschen S., Nat. Rev. Mater., 9 (2024) 509-526

    2024

  31. [39]

    R., Ju S., Han X., Ma J., Plumb N

    Hu Y., Wu X., Ortiz B. R., Ju S., Han X., Ma J., Plumb N. C., Radovic M., Thomale R., Wilson S. D., Schnyder A. P. and Shi M. Nat. Commun., 13 (2022) 2220

    2022

  32. [40]

    I., Dai P., Chu J., Si Q

    Huang J., Chen L., Huang Y., Setty C., Gao B., Shi Y., Liu Z., Zhang Y., Yilmaz T., Vescovo E., Hashimoto M., Lu D., Yakobson B. I., Dai P., Chu J., Si Q. and Yi M., Nat. Phys., 20 (2024) 603-609

    2024

  33. [41]

    Y., Tsirlin A

    Verchenko V. Y., Tsirlin A. A., Sobolev A. V., Presniakov I. A., and Shevelkov A. V.,Inorg. Chem., 54 (2015) 8598- 8607

    2015

  34. [42]

    and Jarillo-Herrero P., Nature, 556 (2018) 43-50

    Cao Y., Fatemi V., Fang S., Watanabe K., Taniguchi T., Kaxiras E. and Jarillo-Herrero P., Nature, 556 (2018) 43-50

    2018

  35. [43]

    Choi Y. W. and Choi H. J. Phys. Rev. B, 98 (2018) 241412(R)

    2018

  36. [44]

    and Zhou X

    Luo H.,Gao Q., Liu H., Gu Y., Wu D., Yi C., Jia J., Wu S., Luo X., Xu Y., Zhao L., Wang Q., Mao H., Liu G., Zhu Z., Shi Y., Jiang K., Hu J., Xu Z. and Zhou X. J., Nat. Commun., 13 (2022) 273

    2022

  37. [45]

    N., Miao H., Kondo T

    Zhong Y., Li S., Liu H., Dong Y., Aido K., Arai Y., Li H., Zhang W., Shi Y., Wang Z., Shin S., Lee H. N., Miao H., Kondo T. and Okazaki K., Nat. Commun., 14 (2023) 1945

    2023

  38. [46]

    I., Pushkarev G

    Badrtdinov D. I., Pushkarev G. V., Katsnelson M. I. and Rudenko A. N., npj 2D Mater. Appl., 7 (2023) 52

    2023

Pith tools

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