Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 56 references

A Spintronic Battery with Reversible Modulation of Spin Polarization through Li Charge/Discharge: A First Principles Computational Modelling Case Study for an Antiperovskite System

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes that lithium insertion into the antiperovskite Fe3SnC reversibly rewrites the spin polarization at the Fermi level, with computed values of 30.39%, 71.23%, 39.5%, 12.09%, and 38.00% across x = 0 to 4, establishing a…

desk verdict A useful computational case study showing lithiation tunes Fermi-level spin polarization in Fe3SnC/Fe3C, but the 'spintronic battery' claim overshoots the evidence because the experiments measure magnetization, not spin polarization, and the electrode is biphasic. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14401 v1 pith:XQGDQAXM submitted 2025-06-17 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Sk Mujaffer Hossain , Vinila Bedekara , Priyanka Yadavb , Ram Janay Chudhary , Satishchandra Ogale This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords spintronicbatteryiono-spintronicsantiperovskiteFe3SnClithium-ionanodespinpolarizationdensityfunctionaltheorymagneticmomentmodulationbiphasiclithiation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes that a battery electrode can store spin as well as charge, calling the combined effect a 'spintronic battery' or 'iono-spintronics.' Using spin-polarized density functional theory, it predicts that inserting one to four lithium atoms into the antiperovskite Fe3SnC changes the spin polarization at the Fermi level from 30.39% to 71.23%, 39.5%, 12.09%, and 38.00%, and that magnetization measurements on lithiated samples follow the same non-monotonic trend. The authors argue that if this holds, lithium charge/discharge cycles give reversible, electrically controlled writing and erasing of a spin signal in a conventional battery architecture. They also show experimentally that lithiation splits Fe3SnC into a Sn-Li alloy and lithiated Fe3C, and the same DFT treatment of Fe3C reproduces the trend, suggesting the spin-storage effect can survive the biphasic decomposition.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spin polarization at the Fermi level, defined by equation (1) as $SP = \frac{|N_\uparrow(E_F)-N_\downarrow(E_F)|}{N_\uparrow(E_F)+N_\downarrow(E_F)}\times 100\%$, with $N_\uparrow$ and $N_\downarrow$ the spin-resolved densities of states at $E_F$. The mechanism that carries the argument is Li insertion into interstitial voids of the antiperovskite lattice: each inserted Li distorts the Fe coordination octahedra, changes Fe-Fe and Fe-C bond lengths, and alters the hybridization of Fe-d states at $E_F$, which simultaneously shifts the magnetic ordering and the spin-resolved density of states. The same strain logic is applied to lithiated Fe3C, the Fe-bearing phase that actually forms after lithiation, and it reproduces the non-monotonic spin-polarization sequence. This machinery ties structural distortion, magnetism, and spin-dependent conduction together in one calculable quantity.

What would settle it

Measure the Fermi-level spin polarization directly on lithiated Fe3SnC electrodes, for example by spin-resolved photoemission or point-contact Andreev reflection, at controlled lithium contents; if the polarization does not show the predicted sequence (about 71% at one Li, 12% at three Li, 38% at four Li), or if it is dominated by the Sn-Li alloy phase rather than the Fe3C phase, the central claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in Fe3SnC, lithium insertion acts as a continuous tuning knob for spin polarization at the Fermi level: the computed degree of spin polarization, $\frac{|N_\uparrow(E_F)-N_\downarrow(E_F)|}{N_\uparrow(E_F)+N_\downarrow(E_F)}\times 100\%$, runs 30.39% (x=0), 71.23% (x=1), 39.5% (x=2), 12.09% (x=3), 38.00% (x=4) as the material is lithiated. The modulation is driven by Li-induced strain: the cubic antiperovskite distorts toward rhombohedral symmetry, Fe changes local coordination from Sn4C2 octahedra to Li-containing distorted octahedra, and the magnetic ground state alternates between ferromagnetic and ferrimagnetic ordering. Because the measured magnetization per Fe atom follows the same trend as the computed spin polarization, the authors interpret their results as experimental evidence for concurrent and reversible charge and spin storage in a working anode, even though experimental analysis shows the lithiated electrode is actually a biphasic mixture of Sn-Li alloy and lithiated Fe3C.

Load-bearing premise

The whole prediction rests on the assumption that the computer-simulated lithiated crystal structures are the ones actually present in the battery during charging and discharging, so the calculated spin signal matches the measured magnetization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single rechargeable Li-ion cell could act as a spintronic source whose spin signal is set by state of charge, with one lithium per formula unit nearly 2.4 times the pristine spin polarization.
  • Because the computed trend for lithiated Fe3C mirrors Fe3SnC (78.53% at one Li, 10% at three Li), the spin-storage effect may survive the experimentally observed decomposition into Sn-Li alloy plus Fe3C.
  • Magnetization per Fe atom can serve as a practical proxy for Fermi-level spin polarization, letting battery researchers monitor spin-state tuning with standard magnetic measurements.
  • Reversible cycling of the anode implies the spin signal can be written, erased, and rewritten electrochemically rather than by applied magnetic fields.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If lithium content sets Fermi-level spin polarization, the state of charge of such a cell could be read out non-destructively through a spin-dependent transport measurement, giving a spintronic 'fuel gauge.'
  • The non-monotonic spin-polarization curve (peak at one Li, dip at three Li) might be a generic signature of strain-mediated insertion in antiperovskites; testing other M3AX compounds with A-site elements that do not alloy with lithium would separate the intrinsic effect from the biphasic decomposition observed here.
  • A direct test would be to calculate or measure the spin polarization of the actual two-phase composite (Sn-Li plus lithiated Fe3C) as a function of overall lithium content; the present paper computes each phase separately, so the composite's spin transport remains an open question.
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. The paper proposes a new concept of 'iono-spintronics' or a 'spintronic battery,' claiming that lithium insertion into the antiperovskite Fe3SnC anode reversibly modulates the spin polarization at the Fermi level, thereby storing charge and spin concurrently. DFT calculations for LixFe3SnC (x = 0–4) yield spin polarization values of 30.39%, 71.23%, 39.5%, 12.09%, and 38.00%, and analogous calculations for LixFe3C give a similar non-monotonic trend. Experiments reported in the manuscript show that lithiation of Fe3SnC actually produces a biphasic mixture of a Sn-Li alloy and lithiated Fe3C, and magnetization measurements on lithiated samples exhibit a non-monotonic trend that the authors compare with the computed magnetic moments and spin polarization values. The paper concludes that this demonstrates reversible and concurrent charge and spin storage in a battery configuration.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the work would introduce a mechanism for ionic control of spin polarization at the Fermi level, going beyond prior magneto-ionics studies that tune bulk magnetization. The DFT calculations are internally consistent, use standard PBE parameters and dense k-point sampling, and the computed magnetic moments agree well with the measured magnetization trend, which is a genuine strength. The non-monotonic spin polarization variation with Li content is a falsifiable prediction for single-phase LixFe3SnC and LixFe3C, and the identification of Fe3C as the likely magnetically active component is a useful insight. However, the paper does not directly demonstrate reversible spin polarization modulation in the actual biphasic electrode, and the experimental data presented are magnetization measurements rather than spin polarization measurements; these gaps substantially limit the significance of the claim as currently stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Section 2.4, Fig. 9] The central claim that lithium insertion reversibly modulates the spin polarization of the electrode is not directly supported for the material actually cycled. The manuscript states in the Abstract and in Section 2.4 that lithiation turns the system into a biphasic state comprising a tin-lithium alloy and lithiated Fe3C, yet the spin polarization values in Table 2 and Figure 9 are computed for single-phase LixFe3SnC, and Section 2.5 computes spin polarization for isolated LixFe3C. No calculation or measurement provides the spin polarization of the biphasic composite, which would depend on phase fractions, interfaces, and connectivity between the phases. The inference from single-phase DFT to the spin signal of the real electrode is therefore load-bearing and is not validated anywhere in the manuscript.
  2. [Fig. 9, Eq. (1)] The experimental validation shown in Figure 9 plots magnetization per Fe atom, not spin polarization. Because the paper defines spin polarization through the spin-resolved density of states at the Fermi level (Eq. 1), an integral quantity such as magnetization cannot validate the computed spin polarization trend; two systems with identical magnetization can have very different Fermi-level spin polarization. A spin-sensitive probe, such as point-contact Andreev reflection or spin-resolved photoemission, would be needed to support the claimed reversible spin polarization modulation.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Table S1] The choice of ferromagnetic versus ferrimagnetic ordering for each Li content is a modeling assumption that strongly affects the computed spin polarization values. Table 1 shows that the energy differences among magnetic orders in Fe3SnC are small, with the non-magnetic state only 2.42 meV above the ferrimagnetic ground state, yet the paper selects the lowest-energy order for each composition without reporting the FM–FIM energy differences for LixFe3SnC and LixFe3C. The paper should quantify how sensitive the Table 2 and Table 3 spin polarization values are to this magnetic ordering choice, since small energy differences could make the reported trend non-robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The section numbering is inconsistent: a section labeled '3.2' appears twice, and Sections 2.3–2.5 appear after Section 3.2; the manuscript should be renumbered before publication.
  2. [References] Reference [53] appears to be an unrelated Gastroenterology paper; the intended reference for ultrasoft pseudopotentials is missing, and several other references are incomplete or contain file-placeholder titles (e.g., 'InfoMat - 2021 - Deng' and 'Advanced Science - 2017 - Ying').
  3. [Figure 9] The axes and curves in Figure 9 are not clearly defined in the caption; the caption should specify which curve corresponds to which quantity (magnetization at 5 K, 300 K, theory, spin polarization for Fe3C, spin polarization for Fe3SnC) and identify the scale for each quantity.
  4. [Eq. (1)] The typesetting of Equations (1) and (2) is garbled in the manuscript; the formula for spin polarization should be displayed cleanly with proper subscripts and superscripts.
  5. [Tables S1 and S2] Tables S1 and S2 are cited in the text, but their contents (energy differences and lattice parameters) are not discussed; a brief statement on the stability and structural trends of the selected phases would help the reader assess the calculations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spin-polarization values are computed directly from first-principles DOS and are not fitted to or defined by the experimental magnetization.

full rationale

The paper derives spin polarization values from spin-resolved DFT densities of states via Eq. (1), with no fitting parameter drawn from the experimental magnetization. The magnetic ordering (FM vs FIM) for each LixFe3SnC and LixFe3C composition is selected by computed total-energy differences (Table 1 and Table S1), not by matching the reported SP values. The cited prior work [11] is used to motivate Fe3SnC as a high-capacity anode, but the SP prediction is generated by the present DFT calculations, so the self-citation is not load-bearing for the central computed result. The comparison with experimental magnetization is presented as corroboration of a trend, not as the source of the SP numbers. The concern that the actual electrode is biphasic (LiSn + lithiated Fe3C) while SP is computed for single-phase structures is an external-validity or modeling-relevance gap, not a circular reduction: the paper does not define its SP prediction in terms of the experimental outcome. No equation is used both as input and output, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the conclusion. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity.

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

No fitted parameters are used; the DFT is ab initio. The magnetic ordering per Li content is a modeling choice, not a fitted number. No new physical entities are introduced; iono-spintronics is a conceptual term.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption PBE exchange-correlation functional accurately describes magnetic and electronic structure of Fe3SnC and Fe3C.
    The study relies on PBE, which is known to sometimes misorder magnetic states; no higher-level corrections (HSE, +U) are used.
  • domain assumption The DFT-optimized structures represent the phases present in the experimental lithiated samples.
    The paper computes single-phase LixFe3SnC, but experiments show biphasic mixtures; this assumption underlies the comparison in Figure 9.
  • domain assumption Spin polarization at EF, as defined by Eq. (1), is a meaningful quantity for device spin transport.
    The paper uses the standard definition for half-metals, but its relevance to a full spin battery is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Spintronic Battery with Reversible Modulation of Spin Polarization through Li Charge/Discharge: A First Principles Computational Modelling Case Study for an Antiperovskite System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XQGDQAXM

@misc{pith2026250614401,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Spintronic Battery with Reversible Modulation of Spin Polarization through Li Charge/Discharge: A First Principles Computational Modelling Case Study for an Antiperovskite System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XQGDQAXM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14401}
}
read the original abstract

A key notion defining the progress of the emergent fields of modern electronics, renewable energy, and smart systems is charge storage, which is primarily embodied in various battery chemistries and systems. In addition to the charge property, the electron also has the spin property, which is exploited in the field of spintronics to access novel magnetically controlled device actions that are not accessible to conventional electronics. An interesting question is whether the two can be fruitfully integrated into a single device concept to expand the horizon of device design and applications. Herein, we present a combined experimental and theoretical study of virgin and lithiated conducting intermetallic anti-perovskite with nominal stoichiometry represented as LixFe3SnC (x = 1, 2, 3, 4) to establish the principle of reversible and concurrent charge and spin polarization storage that can be aptly christened as Iono-Spintronics, representing a notion of a spintronic battery. The experimental results, however, showed that lithiation turns the system into a biphasic state comprised of tin-lithium alloy (due to the high affinity of Sn for Li) along with lithiated Fe3C. The process exhibits multiple cyclability (rechargeability).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14401 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a, b) represents the spin arrangement of the Fe atom of FM and FIM order, the green arrow represents the arrangement of the direction of the spin magnetic moment, and (c) represents the DOS of FIM of Fe3SnC. 3.2. Li induced Strain and Magnetization in Fe3SnC In our previous theoretical study, we have already seen that the strain effects due to the lithiation indeed cause the structural changes at the time of chargi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Analogous to the pristine compound, all the lithiated cases exhibit metallic behavior. Further, in all these cases, it is the Fe-d states that have dominant contributions to the DOS at Fermi energy. More interestingly, the spin polarization at the Fermi level is significantly modulated. SP as a function of the number of Li atoms is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. (a) Pure Fe3SnC crystal system (b) Li at a tetrahedral position inside Fe3SnC (c) Optimize Fe3SnC with a single lithium (n=1) and formation of LiSn and Fe 3C phases. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Represents the total density of states (DOS) of pure Fe3C (black curve) and projected DOS of lithiated system, (a) Fe3C (FM), LiFe3C (FM) (b) Li2Fe3C (FM) (c) Li3Fe3C (FIM) (d) Li4Fe3C (FM). 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [53]

    J. M. Smith, S. P. Jones, L. D. White, Gastroenterology 1977, 72, 193

    work page 1977

  2. [1]

    B. G. Levi, Phys. Today 2001, 54, 9

    work page 2001

  3. [2]

    S. Gong, H. Ding, W. Zhu, C. Duan, Z. Zhu, J. Chu, Sci. China Physics, Mech. Astron. 2013, 56, 232

    work page 2013

  4. [3]

    Taniyama, E

    T. Taniyama, E. Wada, M. Itoh, M. Yamaguchi, NPG Asia Mater. 2011, 3, 65

    work page 2011

  5. [4]

    Z. G. Yu, M. E. Flatté, Phys. Rev. B - Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2002, 66, 1

    work page 2002

  6. [5]

    J. Tian, S. Hong, I. Miotkowski, S. Datta, Y. P. Chen, Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, 1

    work page 2017

  7. [6]

    Sivakumar, C

    V. Sivakumar, C. A. Ross, N. Yabuuchi, Y. Shao-Horn, K. Persson, G. Ceder, J. Electrochem. Soc. 2008, 155, P83

    work page 2008

  8. [7]

    Abdel-Ghany, A

    A. Abdel-Ghany, A. Mauger, F. Gendron, K. Zaghib, C. Julien, ECS Trans. 19 2019, 3, 137

    work page 2019

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    Reitz, C

    C. Reitz, C. Suchomski, D. Wang, H. Hahn, T. Brezesinski, J. Mater. Chem. C 2016, 4, 8889

    2016

  2. [9]

    Zhang, X

    Q. Zhang, X. Luo, L. Wang, L. Zhang, B. Khalid, J. Gong, H. Wu, Nano Lett. 2016, 16, 583

    2016

  3. [10]

    J. Wang, F. Li, B. Yang, X. Liu, M. Zhao, J. Mater. Chem. A 2017, 5, 21486

    2017

  4. [11]

    K. Roy, V. Chavan, S. M. Hossain, S. Haldar, R. Vaidhyanathan, P. Ghosh, S. B. Ogale, ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 196

    2020

  5. [12]

    J. A. Dawson, T. Famprikis, K. E. Johnston, J. Mater. Chem. A 2021, 9, 18746

    2021

  6. [13]

    InfoMat - 2021 - Deng - Anti‐perovskite materials for energy storage batteries.pdf,

    2021

  7. [14]

    Y. Wang, H. Zhang, J. Zhu, X. Lü, S. Li, R. Zou, Y. Zhao, Adv. Mater. 2020, 32, 1

    2020

  8. [15]

    M. H. Braga, J. A. Ferreira, V. Stockhausen, J. E. Oliveira, A. El-Azab, J. Mater. Chem. A 2014, 2, 5470

    2014

  9. [16]

    Jansen, Angew

    M. Jansen, Angew. Chemie Int. Ed. English 1991, 30, 1547

    1991

  10. [17]

    Y. Wang, Q. Wang, Z. Liu, Z. Zhou, S. Li, J. Zhu, R. Zou, Y. Wang, J. Lin, Y. Zhao, J. Power Sources 2015, 293, 735

    2015

  11. [18]

    X. Lü, G. Wu, J. W. Howard, A. Chen, Y. Zhao, L. L. Daemen, Q. Jia, Chem. Commun. 2014, 50, 11520

    2014

  12. [19]

    Z. Deng, B. Radhakrishnan, S. P. Ong, Chem. Mater. 2015, 27, 3749

    2015

  13. [20]

    Y. Zhao, L. L. Daemen, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 15042

    2012

  14. [21]

    Quartarone, P

    E. Quartarone, P. Mustarelli, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2011, 40, 2525

    2011

  15. [22]

    B. S. Wang, P. Tong, Y. P. Sun, L. J. Li, W. Tang, W. J. Lu, X. B. Zhu, Z. R. Yang, W. H. Song, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2009, 95, 93. 20

    2009

  16. [23]

    Kamishima, T

    K. Kamishima, T. Goto, H. Nakagawa, N. Miura, M. Ohashi, N. Mori, T. Sasaki, T. Kanomata, Phys. Rev. B - Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2001, 63, 1

    2001

  17. [24]

    A. M. Tishin, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2007, 316, 351

    2007

  18. [25]

    B. G. Shen, J. R. Sun, F. X. Hu, H. W. Zhang, Z. H. Cheng, Adv. Mater. 2009, 21, 4545

    2009

  19. [26]

    S. A. Wolf, D. Treger, IEEE Trans. Magn. 2000, 36, 2748

    2000

  20. [27]

    Zener, Phys

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

    1951

  21. [28]

    Oudah, A

    M. Oudah, A. Ikeda, J. N. Hausmann, S. Yonezawa, T. Fukumoto, S. Kobayashi, M. Sato, Y. Maeno, Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 3

    2016

  22. [29]

    B. S. Wang, J. G. Cheng, K. Matsubayashi, Y. Uwatoko, K. Ohgushi, Phys. Rev. B - Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2014, 89, 1

    2014

  23. [30]

    Bauer, G

    E. Bauer, G. Hilscher, H. Michor, C. Paul, E. W. Scheidt, A. Gribanov, Y. Seropegin, H. Noël, M. Sigrist, P. Rogl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2004, 92, 4

    2004

  24. [31]

    Takayama, K

    T. Takayama, K. Kuwano, D. Hirai, Y. Katsura, A. Yamamoto, H. Takagi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2012, 108, 1

    2012

  25. [32]

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

    2013

  26. [33]

    Mollah, J

    S. Mollah, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2004, 16

    2004

  27. [34]

    C. M. I. Okoye, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2003, 15, 833

    2003

  28. [35]

    X. Jia, Y. Zhao, G. Chen, L. Shang, R. Shi, X. Kang, G. I. N. Waterhouse, L. Z. Wu, C. H. Tung, T. Zhang, Adv. Energy Mater. 2016, 6, 1

    2016

  29. [36]

    Y. Yuan, L. Yang, B. He, E. Pervaiz, Z. Shao, M. Yang, Nanoscale 2017, 9, 6259

    2017

  30. [37]

    D. D. Vaughn, J. Araujo, P. Meduri, J. F. Callejas, M. A. Hickner, R. E. Schaak, Chem. Mater. 2014, 26, 6226. 21

    2014

  31. [38]

    H. Tian, F. Xin, X. Wang, W. He, W. Han, J. Mater. 2015, 1, 153

    2015

  32. [39]

    Miyazaki, Front

    R. Miyazaki, Front. Energy Res. 2020, 8, 1

    2020

  33. [40]

    Advanced Science - 2017 - Ying - Metallic Sn‐Based Anode Materials Application in High‐Performance Lithium‐Ion and.pdf,

    2017

  34. [41]

    Z. Dong, Q. Wang, R. Zhang, N. A. Chernova, F. Omenya, D. Ji, M. S. Whittingham, ACS Omega 2019, 4, 22345

    2019

  35. [42]

    E. C. Devi, S. D. Singh, J. Supercond. Nov. Magn. 2021, 34, 15

    2021

  36. [43]

    B. S. Wang, P. Tong, Y. P. Sun, X. B. Zhu, Z. R. Yang, W. H. Song, J. M. Dai, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2010, 97, 2008

    2010

  37. [44]

    H. H. Stadelmaier, L. J. Huetter, Acta Metall. 1959, 7, 415

    1959

  38. [45]

    A. L. Ivanovski, R. F. Sabiryanov, A. N. Skazkin, 1998, 40

    1998

  39. [46]

    Grandjean, A

    F. Grandjean, A. Gerard, J. Phys. F Met. Phys. 1976, 6, 451

    1976

  40. [47]

    B. S. Wang, P. Tong, Y. P. Sun, X. B. Zhu, Z. R. Yang, W. H. Song, J. M. Dai, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2010, 97, 2

    2010

  41. [48]

    Y. Imai, Y. Takahashi, T. Kumagai, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2010, 322, 2665

    2010

  42. [49]

    Sifkovits, H

    M. Sifkovits, H. Smolinski, S. Hellwig, W. Weber, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 1999, 204, 191

    1999

  43. [50]

    Kokado, N

    S. Kokado, N. Fujima, K. Harigaya, H. Shimizu, A. Sakuma, Phys. Rev. B - Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2006, 73, 2

    2006

  44. [51]

    T. S. Choy, J. Chen, S. Hershfield, J. Appl. Phys. 1999, 86, 562

    1999

  45. [52]

    Giannozzi, S

    P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococcioni, I. Dabo, A. Dal Corso, S. De Gironcoli, S. Fabris, G. Fratesi, R. Gebauer, U. Gerstmann, C. Gougoussis, A. Kokalj, M. Lazzeri, L. Martin-Samos, N. Marzari, F. Ma...

    2009

  46. [54]

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

    1996

  47. [55]

    R. A. Evarestov, V. P. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. B - Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2004, 70, 1

    2004

  48. [56]

    Marzari, D

    N. Marzari, D. Vanderbilt, A. De Vita, M. C. Payne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1999, 82, 3296. 23

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.