Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 68 references

What Really Drives Thermopower: Specific Heat or Entropy as the Unifying Principle Across Magnetic, Superconducting, and Nanoscale Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 8 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 Thermopower is driven by entropy per carrier, not specific heat, across magnets, superconductors, and molecular junctions.

desk verdict A competent, honest synthesis of known thermopower formulas whose 'universal entropy' claim is the Kelvin formula under constant-D, with a Nb 'validation' that is mostly noise below Tc. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06745 v2 pith:5UNYZLYV submitted 2025-06-07 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Morteza Jazandari , Jahanfar Abouie , Daryoosh Vashaee This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords thermopowerSeebeckcoefficiententropypercarrierspecificheatKelvinformulamagnondragOnsagerrelationsingle-moleculejunction
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 aims to settle a long-standing ambiguity in thermoelectric physics: whether thermopower — the voltage a material develops in response to a temperature difference — is governed by specific heat or by entropy. The authors claim that the universal driver is entropy per carrier, the change in entropy when one carrier is added at fixed temperature and volume, and that apparent proportionality to specific heat arises only when specific heat follows a power law in temperature. They derive this from the Onsager–Kelvin relation and from a drift-diffusion model, then extend it to magnons and magnon drag using both Newtonian and relativistic fluid treatments. If correct, the claim turns thermopower into a direct probe of entropy in regimes where specific heat misleads, such as magnets above their ordering temperature, superconductors near their critical point, and single-molecule junctions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is Eq. (17), $\alpha = (1/e)(\partial S/\partial N)_{T,V}$, a transport coefficient reduced to a pure thermodynamic derivative via the Maxwell relation $(\partial \bar{\mu}/\partial T)_{N,V} = -(\partial S/\partial N)_{T,V}$, with the cost that the diffusion coefficient is taken energy-independent. The second piece of machinery is the two-fluid momentum-balance model for magnon drag; for antiferromagnets the magnon fluid is treated relativistically with energy-momentum tensor $T^{\mu\nu} = (\epsilon + P)u^\mu u^\nu + P\eta^{\mu\nu}$ and pressure $P = \epsilon/3$ for linear dispersion, which reproduces the drag formula without invoking a magnon mass. The third element is the thermodynamic identity $S = \int_0^T (C_V/T') dT'$, which shows that specific-heat proportionality of thermopower is a special case holding only for power-law $C_V$.

What would settle it

Measure thermopower and specific heat in a material whose specific heat has a non-power-law, non-monotonic temperature dependence — for example, a magnet above its ordering temperature where $C_V$ decays as roughly $T^{-2}$ while entropy saturates near $N k_B \ln(2\mathcal{S}+1)$. The paper predicts thermopower follows the still-rising entropy (for MnTe with $\mathcal{S} = 5/2$, about 154 $\mu$V/K) rather than the falling specific heat. A second check: in a metal with strongly energy-dependent scattering where Mott and Kelvin formulas differ by a factor of two, a measurement that matches the Mott value would falsify the universal prefactor of Eq. (17).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Eq. (17), $\alpha = (1/e)(\partial S(T,N)/\partial N)|_{T,V}$: thermopower equals the partial derivative of entropy with respect to particle number at fixed temperature and volume. The paper derives it twice, from the Onsager transport formula and from a drift-diffusion current model, under the assumption that $v_k^2\tau$ is energy-independent, i.e., a constant diffusion coefficient. For magnons the analogue is $\alpha_m = \partial s_m/\partial n_m$, and for magnon drag the same entropy logic yields $\alpha_{md} = (\alpha_m/e)(n_m/n_e)(\tau_m/(\tau_m + \tau_{me}))$; the authors re-derive this drag formula for massless, linearly dispersing antiferromagnetic magnons from the energy-momentum tensor of a perfect relativistic fluid, eliminating the need for an ill-defined magnon mass. Because $S = \int_0^T (C_V/T') dT'$, thermopower becomes proportional to $C_V$ only when $C_V$ itself follows a power law $C \propto T^r$, which explains why specific heat appears to work for Fermi gases and phonons but fails for ideal gases, spin systems, and molecular junctions. Case studies of magnetic materials, superconducting niobium, and a single-molecule junction, plus comparison with measured niobium thermopower and literature specific-heat data, support the entropy-based scaling.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation of the entropy-per-carrier formula assumes the carrier diffusion coefficient is constant, independent of energy; if diffusion depends strongly on carrier energy, the relation picks up order-unity prefactors (for a Fermi gas with $D \propto \varepsilon$ it is off by a factor of two, and with a $\sqrt{\varepsilon}$ density of states by a factor of three), so the claimed universality is not exact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Above magnetic transition temperatures, thermopower should persist even as specific heat collapses, because paramagnon entropy approaches a finite high-temperature limit; the paper ties this behavior to measured magnon-drag values in MnTe.
  • The widely used formula $\alpha = C_V/(Ne)$ is valid only when $C_V$ follows a power law in temperature; for ideal gases, spin systems, and molecular junctions it should be replaced by the entropy derivative.
  • In antiferromagnets, magnon-drag thermopower can be computed from relativistic conservation laws without assigning a mass to magnons, which resolves a conceptual problem in earlier two-fluid models.
  • Near the superconducting transition, thermopower in niobium follows the entropy of Bogoliubov quasiparticles, so it need not drop immediately after $T_C$ even though the specific heat peaks there.
  • Thermopower measurements can act as an entropy meter for mesoscopic systems, since $\alpha$ directly reads out $\partial S/\partial N$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the Kelvin and Mott formulas differ by factors of two to three when the diffusion coefficient is energy-dependent, quantitative thermopower prediction still requires knowing $D(\varepsilon)$; the entropy-per-carrier identity fixes the functional form but not the universal prefactor.
  • The entropy view suggests a testable signature: heat-capacity anomalies with non-power-law shapes, such as Schottky peaks, should show up in thermopower only through the integrated entropy rather than through the peak itself.
  • In strongly correlated narrow-band systems, the framework connects the high-temperature Heikes-Mott limit and the Kelvin formula as two limits of the same entropy derivative, which may simplify thermopower modeling there.
  • If thermopower literally equals $\partial S/\partial N$, measuring the Seebeck coefficient across a phase diagram yields a map of the entropy landscape per particle, complementing direct entropy measurements in mesoscopic devices.
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 / 8 minor

Summary. This manuscript argues that thermopower is fundamentally governed by the derivative of entropy with respect to carrier number, α = (1/e)(∂S/∂N)_{T,V} (Eq. (17)), and that the often-used proportionality between thermopower and specific heat holds only when the specific heat follows a power law in temperature. The central relation is derived twice, from the Onsager formula (Section II.A) and from a drift-diffusion model (Section II.B), both under an explicitly stated energy-independent v_k²τ (constant diffusion coefficient D) assumption. The framework is then extended to magnon and magnon-drag thermopower, including a relativistic energy-momentum-tensor treatment for massless antiferromagnetic magnons (Section IV.B), and is applied to three case studies: magnetic materials (Fe, Co, Ni, CrSb, MnSb, MnTe), superconducting Nb with new PPMS measurements (Section VI and Appendix D), and a single-molecule junction (Section VII). The paper's central positive claim is that entropy per carrier, rather than specific heat, is the unifying variable, with the specific-heat description recovered as the special power-law case.

Significance. The paper has genuine strengths. The constant-D assumption behind the Kelvin formula is stated explicitly, with concrete Fermi-gas examples showing where order-unity prefactors enter; the power-law condition connecting S and C_V is cleanly formulated (Section II and Table 2); the single-molecule junction derivation (Section VII) correctly reproduces the Landauer result from the entropy derivative; and the relativistic reformulation of antiferromagnetic magnon drag (Section IV.B) avoids the ill-defined magnon mass of earlier hydrodynamic models. The paper also discloses the instrumental artifacts in the Nb thermopower below T_C with unusual candor (Section VI footnote and Appendix D), and the Nb comparison fits the specific heat, an observable independent of the thermopower being predicted, so it is not circular by construction. The Kelvin formula itself is standard (Refs. [4,5]), so the contribution lies in the framing and the applications; the load-bearing weaknesses are the unqualified universality claim, the weak discriminating power of the Nb and magnon-drag validations, and the uncontrolled prefactors in the magnon-drag comparison.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (17)] The universality claim attached to Eq. (17) is stronger than the derivation supports. Both derivations of α = (1/e)(∂S/∂N)_{T,V} — the Onsager route in Eqs. (7)–(10) and the drift-diffusion route in Eqs. (12)–(17) — require v_k²τ, equivalently the diffusion coefficient D, to be energy-independent, as the paper itself states in Section II.B. The paper's own examples show that the exact transport result carries a system-dependent prefactor: for a Fermi gas with D(ε) ∝ ε and ρ(ε) ∝ √ε, the Mott result is (π²/2)k_B²T/(eε_F), three times the Kelvin value. The abstract's claim that thermopower is 'universally proportional to entropy per carrier' is therefore a transport-limit statement, not a demonstrated universal law. The 'entropy per carrier' phrasing is also imprecise: for a degenerate Fermi gas, ∂S/∂N = (1/3)(S/N) because ε_F depends on N, so the derivative in Eq. (17) is not the same as S/N, which is later used in Eqs. (32)–(33). The authors should qualify the universality claim (e.g., 'up to order-unity transport prefactors') in the abstract and conclusion, and they should reconcile the Introduction's statement that the Kelvin formula 'can lead to inaccurate results even for the simple case of the thermopower of an electron gas' with the claimed universality.
  2. [Section VI and Appendix D] The Nb case study does not provide the 'strong experimental validation' claimed in Section VI. The footnote in Section VI and Appendix D state that below T_C the true thermopower is expected to vanish and that the finite values returned by the PPMS fitting algorithm are 'spurious... not physically meaningful.' The regime in which an entropy-based and a specific-heat-based description would differ — the BCS gap opening and the cusp in C_e near T_C — is precisely the regime in which the data are admitted to be noise. Above T_C, C_e = γT is a power law, so S ∝ C_e and the two pictures coincide; the data above about 14 K therefore cannot discriminate between them. The calculated curve additionally depends on fitted parameters (N = 1.6 N_A, Θ_D = 275 K, γ = 0.014) and on a BCS density of states that is strongly energy-dependent near T_C, exactly where the constant-D assumption behind Eq. (17) is least secure. The authors should either present a test in a regime where S and C_V genuinely differ, or explicitly state that the Nb measurement validates only the normal-state linear regime.
  3. [Sections IV–V, Eqs. (31)–(33) and Table 3] The magnon-drag analysis does not quantitatively isolate entropy from transport. The replacement ∂s_m/∂n_m → s_m/n_m in Eq. (32) is introduced with a '~' and is uncontrolled; it is exact only in special regimes (e.g., low-temperature Bloch magnons, where both s_m and n_m scale as T^{3/2}), and the Table 3 column 'α_m ~ S_m/n_m' is not the derivative appearing in Eq. (24). The experimental comparison is qualitative: across the six materials, S_m/n_e spans about three orders of magnitude while the experimental α_md values, taken from different references at different temperatures, vary by about one order and change sign (positive for Fe and MnTe; negative for Co, Ni, CrSb, and MnSb). The sign variation is not discussed, even though ∂s_m/∂n_m is positive-definite and the signs must originate from the carrier charge or from the prefactors n_m/n_e and τ_m/(τ_m+τ_me), which are not tabulated. Because these prefactors are uncontrolled, the claim at the end of Section IV.A that the result 'fundamentally revises' the prior specific-heat-based understanding is not yet quantitatively supported; the authors should tabulate n_m/n_e and the relaxation-time ratio and check whether the entropy term times these prefactors reproduces the measured α_md within uncertainties.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section II.B] The numerical prefactor examples are under-specified: the statement that D(ε) ∝ ε alone gives twice the Kelvin value, and that ρ(ε) ∝ √ε gives three times, does not state the assumed density of states in each case; with ρ(ε) ∝ √ε and constant D the Mott result actually equals the Kelvin value, while D(ε) ∝ ε together with ρ(ε) ∝ √ε gives three times the Kelvin value.
  2. [Section II.B, Eq. (13)] The argument that J = 0 requires both gradient terms in Eq. (13) to vanish because ∇φ and ∇T are 'independently applied' is logically a sufficient rather than necessary condition; in an open circuit the thermoelectric field is induced by ∇T, so the two gradients are not independent. The final result is the standard one, but this step should be clarified.
  3. [Table 3] The column 'α_m ~ S_m/n_m (µeV/K)' cannot be reproduced from the table because the magnon densities n_m are not listed and the units are not explained; the caption should also state that the experimental α_md values come from different references and different temperatures.
  4. [Section V, Eq. (45)] The expression for the spin-diffusion constant Λ is garbled in the typeset version; please write the sum over the Z neighboring shells explicitly and verify that the resulting numerical values in Table 3 have the stated units (m²/s).
  5. [Section VI] The fitted parameters (N = 1.6 N_A, Θ_D = 275 K, γ = 0.014) should be reported together with a measure of fit quality (residuals or χ²), and the text should state explicitly that N is an effective fit parameter rather than the nominal five valence electrons.
  6. [Various] Typos: 'Niobiom' in the Appendix D heading, 'entr opy' in the abstract, and 'approximately ~154 μV/K' in Section III, which uses two approximations at once.
  7. [Figure 2] The Figure 2 caption does not identify which curves are experimental data and which are calculated, although the text refers to 'square symbols'; please clarify the legend.
  8. [Section IV.A] The passage explaining the factor of two in τ_me for doubly degenerate antiferromagnetic magnon modes is hard to follow; please restate the convention for τ_me and the degeneracy factor explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (17) is derived from transport and thermodynamic Maxwell relations, not assumed, and the case studies compare independent observables.

full rationale

The central relation Eq. (17), alpha = (1/e)(∂S/∂N), is derived twice within the paper rather than assumed. The Onsager route (Eqs. 7-10) reduces to the Kelvin form only under the explicitly stated assumption that v_k^2 tau is energy-independent, and the drift-diffusion route (Eqs. 12-17) invokes the Maxwell relation Eq. (6) and the Einstein relation Eq. (14). These are standard thermodynamic and transport identities, not self-definitions. The paper honestly flags the approximation's limits: for a Fermi gas with D(epsilon) proportional to epsilon the Mott result is twice the Kelvin value, and with DOS proportional to sqrt(epsilon) it is three times; this weakens the claim of universality but is a limitation of the constant-D transport limit, not a circular reduction. The Nb validation fits specific heat (Debye temperature, gamma, and N = 1.6 N_A) to the independent specific-heat data and then computes thermopower from the resulting entropy, so thermopower is not being forced by construction. The molecular-junction thermopower is first obtained from the Landauer formula and then independently reproduced by differentiating the two-level entropy with respect to occupation, which is a consistency check rather than a circular derivation. The magnon and magnon-drag formulas follow from the two-fluid momentum balance and the magnon analogue Eq. (24), which is itself derived from the drift-diffusion framework. Citations to prior work by the same group (e.g., Refs. [29] and [32]) supply context for the magnon/paramagnon picture, but the load-bearing derivation in this paper is self-contained, and the experimental comparisons rely on external or independently measured data. The footnote regarding spurious Nb thermopower below T_C is a data-quality caveat, not a circular step. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz is imported solely through self-citation. The paper's main risk is the strength of its universality claim under the constant-D assumption, which belongs in a correctness assessment rather than a circularity finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The constant-D assumption is the main load-bearing modeling choice for the universal entropy claim. The Nb specific heat fit introduces free parameters. The magnetic case studies rely on literature exchange parameters and on subtracting non-magnetic specific heat contributions.

free parameters (3)
  • Effective electron count for Nb specific heat = 1.6 N_A
    In Section VI, the paper states 'N = 1.6 N_A provides a better fit to the experimental data' for the electronic specific heat of Nb; this is an adjustable input to the entropy calculation that produces the thermopower comparison.
  • Debye temperature for Nb = 275 K
    Fitted to Nb specific heat data in Section VI ('the Debye temperature of 275K and a gamma value of 0.014 fits the experimental data').
  • Sommerfeld coefficient gamma for Nb = 0.014
    Fitted to Nb specific heat data in Section VI; used to compute electronic entropy.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Energy-independent diffusion coefficient D (equivalently energy-independent v_k^2 tau) for carriers
    Section II.A and II.B: the Onsager-to-Kelvin derivation and the drift-diffusion model assume constant D; the paper acknowledges this is an approximation and that energy-dependent D changes prefactors by factors of 2-3 for a Fermi gas.
  • domain assumption Kelvin/Onsager slow-DC limit applies; open-circuit and periodic boundary conditions are equivalent
    Section I: 'In this case, the periodic boundary condition can be considered equivalent to the open boundary condition'; the Kelvin formula is the limit that underlies the entropy-per-carrier expression.
  • domain assumption Two-fluid momentum balance with Galilean invariance for massive magnons
    Section IV.A: 'Galilean invariance is assumed... Umklapp and magnon non-conserving processes are neglected.'
  • domain assumption Perfect relativistic fluid energy-momentum tensor with P = epsilon/3 for massless AFM magnons
    Section IV.B: Eqs. (34)-(35) and the relation P = epsilon/3 for linear dispersion; this is the new mathematical structure for AFM magnons.
  • domain assumption Magnetic contribution to measured specific heat can be isolated by subtracting phonon, electronic, and Schottky contributions
    Section V and footnote to Table 3: 'the magnetic component was obtained by subtracting all other relevant contributions'; this subtraction is not shown in detail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What Really Drives Thermopower: Specific Heat or Entropy as the Unifying Principle Across Magnetic, Superconducting, and Nanoscale Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5UNYZLYV

@misc{pith2026250606745,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What Really Drives Thermopower: Specific Heat or Entropy as the Unifying Principle Across Magnetic, Superconducting, and Nanoscale Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5UNYZLYV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06745}
}
read the original abstract

Thermopower, a key parameter in thermoelectric performance, is often linked to either specific heat or entropy, yet the fundamental quantity that governs it has remained elusive. In this work, we present a unified theoretical framework that identifies entropy per carrier, not specific heat, as the universal driver of thermopower across both closed and open systems. Using thermodynamic identities and the Onsager-Kelvin relation, we show that thermopower is universally proportional to entropy per carrier, while its apparent proportionality to specific heat arises only in systems where the specific heat follows a continuous power-law temperature dependence. To extend this framework to magnetic systems, we derive a general expression for magnon-drag thermopower that holds in both Newtonian (massive, parabolic) and relativistic (massless, linear) magnon regimes. In particular, we reformulate the momentum balance using a relativistic energy-momentum tensor, resolving conceptual inconsistencies in prior models that relied on ill-defined magnon masses in antiferromagnets. Our framework is further illustrated through three representative systems: (i) magnetic materials, where magnon and paramagnon entropy sustain thermopower across TC and TN; (ii) superconducting Nb, where anomalous thermopower emerges from entropy carried by Bogoliubov quasiparticles near TC; and (iii) a single-molecule junction, where entropy from occupation-number fluctuations governs thermopower in an open quantum system. We validate our unifying principle by comparing it with experimental data: thermopower measurements of superconducting niobium reveal the role of quasiparticle entropy near the critical temperature, and literature-reported specific heat data from a wide range of ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic materials demonstrate consistent entropy-based scaling across magnetic transitions.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ideal gas: The partition function for an ideal gas of N non- interacting particles is given by [13]: 𝑍𝑍𝑁𝑁 = 1 𝑁𝑁! � 𝑉𝑉 𝜆𝜆𝑡𝑡ℎ 3 � 𝑁𝑁 , (A1) where 𝜆𝜆𝑡𝑡ℎ = ℏ/�2𝜋𝜋𝑚𝑚𝑘𝑘B𝑇𝑇 is the thermal wavelength, and 𝑉𝑉 is the volume of the system. The internal energy (𝑑𝑑), the Helmholtz free energy ( 𝑑𝑑), the specific heat (𝐶𝐶𝑉𝑉), and the entropy (𝑆𝑆) are, respectively, ob...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Degenerate Fermi gas : The distribution function is represented by [61]: 𝜕𝜕𝑘𝑘(𝑇𝑇, 𝜇𝜇̄) = 1 𝑒𝑒 (𝜀𝜀(𝑘𝑘)−𝜇𝜇̄ 𝑘𝑘B𝑇𝑇 ) + 1 . (A7) The number of fermions is given by: 𝑁𝑁(𝑇𝑇, 𝜇𝜇̅) = � 𝜕𝜕𝑘𝑘(𝑇𝑇, 𝜇𝜇̅) 𝑘𝑘 = � 𝜌𝜌(𝜀𝜀)𝑑𝑑𝜀𝜀 𝑒𝑒 (𝜀𝜀−𝜇𝜇̄ 𝑘𝑘B𝑇𝑇) + 1 ∞ 0 = 𝑉𝑉 3𝜋𝜋2 �2𝑚𝑚 ℏ2 � 3 2 𝜇𝜇̅ 3 2 �1 + 𝜋𝜋2 8 �𝑘𝑘B𝑇𝑇 𝜇𝜇̅ � + ⋯ � , (A8) where the density of state (containing the spin degen...

    work page

  3. [3]

    (A14) Similarly, we have for the thermopower: 𝛼𝛼 = 𝜋𝜋2 6 𝑘𝑘B𝑇𝑇 𝜀𝜀F ∗ 𝑘𝑘B 𝑒𝑒 ; 𝜀𝜀F ∗ = ℏ2𝑘𝑘F 2 2𝑚𝑚∗

    Fermi liquid: The specific heat of a Fermi liquid with effective mass 𝑚𝑚∗ is related to the specific heat of the Fermi gas by 𝑚𝑚∗/𝑚𝑚 , so the specific heat of the Fermi liquid is [3]: 𝐶𝐶𝑉𝑉 ∗ = 𝑚𝑚∗𝑘𝑘F 3ℏ2 𝑘𝑘B 2𝑇𝑇. (A14) Similarly, we have for the thermopower: 𝛼𝛼 = 𝜋𝜋2 6 𝑘𝑘B𝑇𝑇 𝜀𝜀F ∗ 𝑘𝑘B 𝑒𝑒 ; 𝜀𝜀F ∗ = ℏ2𝑘𝑘F 2 2𝑚𝑚∗ . (A15) In this case , the entropy is equal t...

    work page

  4. [4]

    In this regime, magnons are quenched by thermal fluctuations, and the system exhibits paramagnetic behavior

    High-temperature magnetic spin system : At high temperatures, above the critical temperature, the long-range magnetic order in a spin system disappears, but short -range magnetic correlations persist. In this regime, magnons are quenched by thermal fluctuations, and the system exhibits paramagnetic behavior. The specific heat of the magnetic spin system f...

    work page

  5. [5]

    M. R. Peterson and B. S. Shastry, Physical Review B 82, 195105 (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Sugihara, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 33, 1365 (1972)

    K. Sugihara, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 33, 1365 (1972)

    work page 1972

  7. [7]

    X. Zhou, Y. Yan, X. Lu, H. Zhu, X. Han, G. Chen, and Z. Ren, Materials Today 21, 974 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Arsenault, B

    L.-F. Arsenault, B. S. Shastry, P. Sémon, and A. - M. Tremblay, Physical review B 87, 035126 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    B. S. Shastry, Reports on progress in physics 72, 016501 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    G. D. Mahan, Many -particle physics (Springer Science & Business Media, 2000)

    2000

  3. [11]

    W. Xu, C. Weber, and G. Kotliar, Physical Review B 84, 035114 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    Terasaki, Materials for Energy Conversion Devices, 339 (2005)

    I. Terasaki, Materials for Energy Conversion Devices, 339 (2005)

    2005

  5. [13]

    S. J. Blundell and K. M. Blundell, Concepts in thermal physics (Oup Oxford, 2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Z l a t i ć , R

    V . Z l a t i ć , R . M o n n i e r , J . F r e e r i c k s , a n d K . Becker, Physical Review B 76, 085122 (2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    Vandaele, S

    K. Vandaele, S. J. Watzman, B. Flebus, A. Prakash, Y. Zheng, S. R. Boona, and J. P. Heremans, Materials Today Physics 1, 39 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Behnia, D

    K. Behnia, D. Jaccard, and J. Flouquet, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 16, 5187 (2004)

    2004

  9. [17]

    Grannemann and L

    G. Grannemann and L. Berger, Physical Review B 13, 2072 (1976)

    1976

  10. [18]

    Zheng et al

    Y. Zheng et al. , Science advances 5 , eaat9461 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    B. S. Shastry, in New Materials for Thermoelectric Applications: Theory and Experiment (Springer, 2013), pp. 25

    2013

  12. [20]

    M. R. Peterson, B. S. Shastry, and J. O. Haerter, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 76, 165118 (2007)

    2007

  13. [21]

    Y. Wang, N. S. Rogado, R. J. Cava, and N. P. Ong, Nature 423, 425 (2003)

    2003

  14. [22]

    Ikeda, R

    K. Ikeda, R. Fletcher, J. Maan, and J. Kossut, Physical Review B 65, 035201 (2001)

    2001

  15. [23]

    D. R. Brown, T. Day, K. A. Borup, S. Christensen, B. B. Iversen, and G. J. Snyder, Apl Materials 1 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    P. Sun, K. R. Kumar, M. Lyu, Z. Wang, J. Xiang, and W. Zhang, The Innovation 2 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Kleeorin, H

    Y. Kleeorin, H. Thierschmann, H. Buhmann, A. Georges, L. W. Molenkamp, and Y. Meir, Nature communications 10, 5801 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    −30 [26] −27 [34] −6 [34] 100 [34] Transition temperature (K) 𝑇𝑇C = 1043 [47] 𝑇𝑇C = 1388 [48] 𝑇𝑇C = 633 [49] 𝑇𝑇N = 713 [34] 𝑇𝑇C = 587 [51] 𝑇𝑇N = 307 [11] Structure BCC [50] FCC [50] FCC [50] NiAs [41] NiAs [42] NiAs [11] Lattice parameter (Å) 𝑎𝑎 = 2.867 [50] 𝑎𝑎 = 3.429 [50] 𝑎𝑎...

  19. [27]

    Coleman, Introduction to many -body physics (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    P. Coleman, Introduction to many -body physics (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Kardar, Statistical physics of particles (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    M. Kardar, Statistical physics of particles (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    Strunk, Entropy 23, 1573 (2021)

    C. Strunk, Entropy 23, 1573 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    S. M. Girvin and K. Yang, Modern condensed matter physics (Cambridge University Press, 2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Sólyom, Fundamentals of the Physics of Solids: Volume II: Electronic Properties (Springer Science & Business Media, 2008), Vol

    J. Sólyom, Fundamentals of the Physics of Solids: Volume II: Electronic Properties (Springer Science & Business Media, 2008), Vol. 2

    2008

  24. [32]

    Wasscher and C

    J. Wasscher and C. Haas, Physics Letters 8 , 302 (1964)

    1964

  25. [33]

    S. J. Watzman, R. A. Duine, Y. Tserkovnyak, S. R. Boona, H. Jin, A. Prakash, Y. Zheng, and J. P. Heremans, Physical Review B 94, 144407 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Without considering temperature effects, the spin state of the system is determined by the competition between pairing energy and the crystal field

    Semimetal [53] Semiconductor [11] * The exact value of 𝒮𝒮 may differ from the listed numbers. Without considering temperature effects, the spin state of the system is determined by the competition between pairing energy and the crystal field. However, when temperature effects ...

  27. [35]

    M. M. H. Polash and D. Vashaee, Physical Review B 102, 045202 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    M. M. H. Polash, M. Rasoulianboroujeni, and D. Vashaee, Applied Physics Letters 117 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    M. M. H. Polash, M. Stone, S. Chi, and D. Vashaee, Energy & Environmental Materials 8 , e12822 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    M. M. H. Polash, M. Alidoosti, M. Hall, & D. Vashaee, (2024) , Materials Today Physics , 46, 101526

    2024

  31. [39]

    Heydarinasab, M

    F. Heydarinasab, M. Jazandari, M. M. H. Polash, J. Abouie, and D. Vashaee, Physical Review B 109, 054418 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    [40] [40] [41] [42] [43] 𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑒 (cm-3) 1.7 × 1023 [44] 1.81 × 1023 [44] 1.83 × 1023 [44] 7 × 1021 [34] 8 × 1021 [34] 1 × 1019 [35] 𝒟𝒟 (FM) / 𝑣𝑣𝑚𝑚 (AFM) 27 meVÅ2 [26] 43 meVÅ2 [26] 59 meVÅ2 [26] 1 × 104 m/s [34] 5.55 meVÅ2 [42] 1.4 × 104 m/s [37] 𝑣𝑣𝑚𝑚 (m/s) 54 𝑞𝑞 86 𝑞𝑞 118 𝑞𝑞 1 ×...

  33. [41]

    M. M. H. Polash, D. Moseley, J. Zhang, R. P. Hermann, and D. Vashaee, Cell Reports Physical Science 2 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    M. M. H. Polash, F. Mohaddes, M. Rasoulianboroujeni, and D. Vashaee, Journal of Materials Chemistry C 8, 4049 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Haas, Critical Reviews in Solid State and Material Sciences 1, 47 (1970)

    C. Haas, Critical Reviews in Solid State and Material Sciences 1, 47 (1970)

    1970

  36. [44]

    Zanmarchi, C

    G. Zanmarchi, C. Haas, Philips Res. Rep. 22, 389 (1968)

    1968

  37. [45]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics: Volume 6 (Elsevier, 1987), Vol. 6

    1987

  38. [46]

    Sugihara, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 34, 1727 (1973)

    K. Sugihara, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 34, 1727 (1973)

    1973

  39. [47]

    Pajda, J

    M. Pajda, J. Kudrnovský, I. Turek, V. Drchal, and P. Bruno, Physical Review B 64, 174402 (2001)

    2001

  40. [48]

    S. Abe, T. Kaneko, M. Ohashi, H. Yoshida, and K. Kamigaki, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 53, 2703 (1984)

    1984

  41. [49]

    Yamaguchi, S

    Y. Yamaguchi, S. Tomiyoshi, M. Harada, and G. Shirane, Journal of magnetism and magnetic materials 103, 50 (1992)

    1992

  42. [50]

    Magnin and H

    Y. Magnin and H. T. Diep, Physical Review B — Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 85, 184413 (2012)

    2012

  43. [51]

    N. W. Ashcroft, N. D. Mermin, and S. Rodriguez, American Journal of Physics 46, 116 (1978)

    1978

  44. [52]

    Blundell, Magnetism in condensed matter (OUP Oxford, 2001)

    S. Blundell, Magnetism in condensed matter (OUP Oxford, 2001)

    2001

  45. [53]

    Marchal, T

    N. Marchal, T. da Câmara Santa Clara Gomes, F. Abreu Araujo, and L. Piraux, Scientific Reports 13, 9280 (2023). 23

    2023

  46. [54]

    Biele, M

    J. Biele, M. Grott, M. E. Zolensky, A. Benisek, and E. Dachs, International Journal of Thermophysics 43, 144 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Kittel and P

    C. Kittel and P. McEuen, Introduction to solid state physics (John Wiley & Sons, 2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    P. J. Meschter, J. W. Wright, C. R. Brooks, and T. G. Kollie, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 42, 861 (1981)

    1981

  49. [57]

    Tancogne -Dejean, F

    N. Tancogne -Dejean, F. Eich, and A. Rubio, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 16, 1007 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    Radhakrishna and J

    P. Radhakrishna and J. Cable, Physical Review B 54, 11940 (1996)

    1996

  51. [59]

    S. Mu, R. P. Hermann, S. Gorsse, H. Zhao, M. E. Manley, R. S. Fishman, and L. Lindsay, Physical Review Materials 3, 025403 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    Oveshnikov et al., Scientific Reports 11, 16004 (2021)

    L. Oveshnikov et al., Scientific Reports 11, 16004 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Lindgren, J

    L.-E. Lindgren, J. Edberg, P. Åkerström, and Z. Zhang, Journal of Thermal Stresses 42, 725 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    V. Y. Bodryakov, High Temperature 58, 213 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    De Gennes, Superconductivity of metals and alloys (CRC press, 2018)

    P.-G. De Gennes, Superconductivity of metals and alloys (CRC press, 2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    Richards and M

    P. Richards and M. Tinkham, Physical Review 119, 575 (1960)

    1960

  57. [65]

    S. A. Jasim, M. M. Kadhim, V. Kn, I. Raya, S. J. Shoja, W. Suksatan, M. H. Ali, and E. Kianfar, Brazilian Journal of Physics 52, 31 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    Evangeli, M

    C. Evangeli, M. Matt, L. Rincón-García, F. Pauly, P. Nielaba, G. Rubio -Bollinger, J. C. Cuevas, and N. Agraït, Nano letters 15, 1006 (2015)

    2015

  59. [67]

    Rincón-García, C

    L. Rincón-García, C. Evangeli, G. Rubio - Bollinger, and N. Agraït, Chemical Society Reviews 45, 4285 (2016)

    2016

  60. [68]

    R. K. Pathria, Statistical mechanics (Elsevier, 2016)

    2016

Pith tools

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