Investigation of magnetic and magneto-transport properties in non-centrosymmetric antiferromagnetic semimetal GdGaSi

Manikantha Panda; Prabuddha Kant Mishra; Sonali S Pradhan; Tapas Paramanik; V. Kanchana

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Investigation of magnetic and magneto-transport properties in non-centrosymmetric antiferromagnetic semimetal GdGaSi

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GdGaSi is an antiferromagnetic semimetal whose spin order and electron transport lock together.

desk verdict A credible first characterization of GdGaSi's AFM semimetal behavior, but the noncentrosymmetric structure—and the topological framing built on it—rests on lab XRD and a 0 K energy comparison, not on a direct ordering probe. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21938 v1 pith:4EDEH3NV submitted 2025-06-27 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Manikantha Panda , Prabuddha Kant Mishra , Sonali S Pradhan , V. Kanchana , Tapas Paramanik This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 75.50.Ee72.15.Gd71.20.-b

keywords GdGaSiantiferromagneticsemimetalnon-centrosymmetricI4_1mdRTXintermetallicsmagnetotransportKohlerscalingspinreorientation

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 establish that the rare-earth intermetallic GdGaSi is an antiferromagnetic semimetal in which magnetic ordering and electronic transport are coupled, and that its non-centrosymmetric tetragonal structure makes it a candidate for correlated topological behavior. The authors back the claim with first-principles calculations plus magnetization, resistivity, magnetoresistance, and Hall measurements on an annealed polycrystalline sample. They find antiferromagnetic order at 19 K with a spin-reorientation signature, electron-dominated carriers near $10^{21}$ cm$^{-3}$, and a sharp resistivity drop at the ordering temperature. The coexistence of the 19 K magnetic transition with changes in carrier density, mobility, and Kohler-scaling branches is presented as evidence that magnetism and transport respond to each other in this material.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are (i) the ordered $I4_1md$ crystal structure, whose missing horizontal mirror plane breaks inversion symmetry; (ii) DFT+U calculations that rank magnetic configurations and identify AFM1 as the lowest-energy state; and (iii) a set of magnetotransport observables—resistivity, magnetoresistance, Hall resistivity, and Kohler scaling of MR against $H/\rho_0$—that connect the 19 K transition to carrier concentration, mobility, and scattering. The Kohler-plot splitting into one branch below $T_N$ and another above it is the central experimental signature that transport is coupled to magnetism. The exponent change in the MR power law from about 1.48 at 5 K to 2 at 25 K is used to argue for nontrivial electronic characteristics below the transition.

What would settle it

High-resolution synchrotron X-ray or neutron diffraction on the annealed polycrystal could settle the symmetry question: the centrosymmetric $I4_1/amd$ model forbids certain weak reflections that $I4_1md$ allows, and such data would also reveal Ga/Si site intermixing directly. Finding the extra reflections would support the non-centrosymmetric assignment; failing to find them, or refining partial Ga/Si disorder, would invalidate the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that GdGaSi stabilizes in the ordered non-centrosymmetric LaPtSi-type structure (space group $I4_1md$), orders antiferromagnetically at $T_N = 19$ K, and behaves as a semimetal with electrons as the majority carriers. The magnetic ground state is identified as AFM1, ferromagnetic Gd layers coupled antiferromagnetically along the $c$ axis, with the $ab$ plane as the easy plane. Experimentally, the susceptibility shows a kink at $T_N$ and a spin-reorientation signature below it, the resistivity drops sharply below $T_N$, magnetoresistance is positive and non-saturating (about 2% at 2 K and 8 T), and the Hall coefficient is negative. The change in carrier density and mobility below $T_N$, together with the separation of Kohler’s plots into two branches across the transition, is taken as evidence that the antiferromagnetic order alters the carrier scattering environment.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the synthesized sample is fully ordered at the gallium and silicon sites, so the true symmetry is the non-centrosymmetric $I4_1md$ structure; if even partial Ga/Si intermixing exists, the symmetry would be centrosymmetric $I4_1/amd$ and the non-centrosymmetric semimetal and topological interpretation would not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

GdGaSi becomes a candidate member of the RTX family for studying how antiferromagnetic order and broken inversion symmetry jointly shape electron transport.
Below the 19 K transition, transport measurements must treat the magnetic order as part of the electronic response, since carrier density, mobility, and the field-scaling exponent all change across $T_N$.
The positive, non-saturating magnetoresistance of about 2% at 2 K and 8 T, together with the low-temperature MR exponent near 1.48, gives a quantitative fingerprint for comparing GdGaSi with isostructural compounds.
If the near-Fermi band crossings are nontrivial, GdGaSi would join GdAlSi and related materials as a magnetic semimetal in which the ordered Gd moments break time-reversal symmetry without chemical doping.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the power-law exponent near 1.40 in the low-temperature resistivity and the MR exponent near 1.48 could come from multiple carrier pockets or magnetic scattering rather than linear band dispersion; a two-band analysis or specific-heat measurement could distinguish these.
Beyond the paper, single crystals would enable angle-dependent magnetoresistance and Hall measurements that could reveal the predicted easy-plane anisotropy and any topological Hall contribution, neither of which is isolable in a polycrystal.
Beyond the paper, angle-resolved photoemission on cleaved crystals could directly test the predicted nontrivial crossings near the Fermi energy, which the transport data only hint at.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline first: this is a decent first characterization of GdGaSi, and the antiferromagnetic-semimetal story is probably right. What is not established is the noncentrosymmetric I4_1md assignment, and the topological language slips ahead of the evidence. I'd send it to review, but the authors should be pushed on the structure question.

The genuinely new part is the combined DFT+magnetization+transport+Hall study of a compound that previously had only a brief report. The measurements hang together: TN ~19 K shows up consistently in susceptibility and resistivity, the Hall sign agrees with the DFT electron pockets, and the Kohler splitting across TN is a clean observation that scattering changes at the magnetic transition. The DFT magnetic configuration energy comparison is standard but carefully done. Credit where due: these are real data and a useful addition to the RTX family.

The soft spots are the ones you'd expect. The load-bearing step is the ordered noncentrosymmetric structure. The evidence is a lab PXRD Rietveld with occupancies pinned to 1, plus a 0 K DFT calculation that prefers I4_1md over a fully disordered model by 2 eV. But the paper itself says Ga/Si disorder is common in RGaSi and drives the centrosymmetric I4_1/amd structure. A 0 K energy comparison does not rule out partial disorder stabilized at 900 C, and lab XRD is notoriously poor at distinguishing I4_1md from I4_1/amd in these pseudosymmetric intermetallics. EDAX only gives average composition. So the noncentrosymmetric claim—and with it the whole LaPtSi/Weyl framing—is conditional. The AFM order and semimetallic transport would survive even if the true symmetry were centro.

The Hall analysis also takes the single-carrier approximation even though the band structure shows one hole and two electron pockets. That is acceptable for an effective n and mu, but the paper should say so. The spin-reorientation signature is a small kink in chi and a derivative peak, and the nontrivial exponent m=1.48 is suggestive but not a smoking gun. Those parts should be downgraded.

Net: if the space group is confirmed, this is a solid contribution. If not, it's still a useful characterization but the claim should be softened. For a journal, my recommendation is: send to review, require the authors to address the disorder question—either with a direct structural probe or by reframing the paper without the noncentrosymmetric assumption. For a reading group, it's a good case for discussing structure-property claims on polycrystalline samples.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a combined first-principles and experimental study of the ternary intermetallic GdGaSi. DFT with GGA+U identifies an AFM1 ground state (in-plane ferromagnetic, out-of-plane antiferromagnetic) in the noncentrosymmetric space group I4_1md, and the band structure is described as semimetallic with dominant electron-type carriers and a possible nontrivial crossing near the Fermi level. Experiments on arc-melted polycrystalline samples include PXRD Rietveld refinement, DC magnetization, longitudinal resistivity, magnetoresistance, and Hall measurements. The authors report an antiferromagnetic transition at TN = 19 K, an effective moment of 7.55 μB, positive magnetoresistance of about 2% at 2 K and 8 T, linear negative Hall resistivity interpreted as electron-dominated transport, and a splitting of Kohler's plots across TN. They conclude that GdGaSi is a noncentrosymmetric antiferromagnetic semimetal with strongly intertwined magnetic and transport degrees of freedom and possible topological character.

Significance. If the structural assignment and single-carrier Hall interpretation are correct, the paper adds GdGaSi to the small family of noncentrosymmetric RTX antiferromagnetic semimetals and provides a useful benchmark for studying magnetism-transport coupling. The study has clear strengths: the DFT total-energy comparison covers five magnetic configurations and seven spin orientations; the calculated lattice parameters agree with the refined experimental values; and the magnetization, resistivity, magnetoresistance, and Hall data are presented with standard protocols, including antisymmetrized Hall data and Kohler scaling. The central claims of AFM ordering and semimetallic transport are well supported by the data. The fragile part is the noncentrosymmetric structural assignment and the related topological framing, which rest on laboratory PXRD with fixed occupancies and a single zero-temperature DFT energy comparison. The paper does not ship machine-checked proofs or code, but the experimental reproducibility is adequate for a materials characterization study.

major comments (3)

[Sections III A, IV A; Table II] The assignment of the ordered noncentrosymmetric space group I4_1md is the load-bearing step for the 'broken inversion symmetry' framing and for the comparison to Weyl-type LaPtSi analogs, yet it rests on a Rietveld refinement of laboratory PXRD with occupancies fixed to 1 (Table II) and on a single zero-temperature DFT energy comparison showing I4_1md lower by 2.046 eV than one centrosymmetric disordered model. The manuscript itself states in Section III A that Ga/Si disorder is common in RGaSi and drives the structure to centrosymmetric I4_1/amd. A 0 K total-energy difference cannot rule out entropy-stabilized partial intermixing at the 900 °C annealing temperature, and EDAX provides only average composition, not site occupancy. If even a few percent of Ga/Si site exchange is present, the average symmetry would be I4_1/amd and the noncentrosymmetric/topological component of the central claim would fail, although the AFM order and semimetallic transport would survive. Please add a direct ordering probe, such as neutron diffraction, high-resolution XRD, or STEM/EXAFS with site-occupancy refinement, or explicitly reframe the noncentrosymmetric and topological statements as conditional on an ideally ordered sample.
[Section IV D; Fig. 9] The Hall analysis assumes a single carrier type, justified by the statement that linear Hall resistivity 'signifies the presence of one type of charge carrier.' This is not a valid inference for a multiband metal: the DFT band structure in Section III B explicitly shows both hole and electron pockets (one hole-type band and two electron-type bands), and a linear ρxy(H) can also arise from nearly compensated carriers with comparable mobilities over a limited field range. The quantities n_e = 1/(R0 e) and μ_e extracted from the single-carrier model are therefore not uniquely determined, and the conclusion that electrons are the majority carrier is not established by this analysis alone. This matters directly for the central claim, since the change in carrier concentration and mobility below TN is one of the three listed correlations in the abstract. Please fit the Hall data with a two-carrier model using the computed Fermi-surface pockets, or provide high-field Hall or quantum oscillation data that constrain the carrier balance, and adjust the wording accordingly.
[Section IV C; Fig. 8] The magnetoresistance exponent m = 1.48 at 5 K is presented as evidence of 'non-trivial characteristics such as linear dispersion,' but a power-law exponent of 1.48 is not linear (m = 1), and the observed splitting of the Kohler plots into two branches across TN can be explained by field-dependent scattering or by changes in the scattering rate with magnetic order, without invoking topological bands. The sentence 'the deviation from this quadratic trend at low temperatures suggests the presence of non-trivial electronic characteristics' overreaches the data. Please remove this topological inference from the transport exponent or support it with a concrete calculation of the expected magnetoresistance for the computed Fermi surface, explicitly stating the alternative conventional explanations.

minor comments (5)

[Section III A; Table II] The text states that μeff = 7.55 μB 'closely matches the theoretical value of 7.12 μB/Gd expected for the Gd3+ ion,' but the free-ion Gd3+ moment is 7.94 μB and Table II/IV B correctly quote 7.93 μB. Please correct the 7.12 value and check the associated sentence.
[Section IV C; Eq. (3), Eq. (4)] Kohler's rule is described as scaling by H/ρ0, where ρ0 in Eq. (3) is the residual resistivity, while the text says 'zero field resistivity at the temperature of measurement.' Please define unambiguously which quantity is used in the horizontal axis of Fig. 8 and keep the notation consistent throughout.
[Section IV A; Table II] The Rietveld refinement quality factors (Rwp, RBragg, χ²) are not reported; please include them in Table II or in the text so the structural assignment can be assessed quantitatively.
[Section IV C; Eq. (2)] Equation (2) defines ρ0, ρee, and ρep, but the following sentence refers to 'ρem' instead of 'ρee'; please correct the typo.
[Figures 5 and 9] Several inset labels and axis ticks in Fig. 5 are too small to read, and the curves in Fig. 5(c) are not individually labeled; please enlarge the fonts and clarify the legend entries.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central claims are established by direct measurements and independent DFT; the structural assignment is a modeling assumption, not a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—AFM ordering at TN=19 K, semimetallic transport with electron-majority carriers, and correlation between magnetism and transport—are established by direct measurements (magnetization, resistivity, Hall effect) and by DFT calculations with stated parameters (PBE+U, U=6 eV). No fitted parameter is recycled into the calculation of a predicted quantity: Curie-Weiss parameters, Hall carrier densities, and Kohler/power-law exponents are descriptive fits, and the DFT magnetic ground-state comparison uses independent spin configurations rather than experimental data. The noncentrosymmetric I4_1md assignment rests on Rietveld refinement carried out in that space group and a 0 K DFT energy comparison against an ordered centrosymmetric model; this is a structural assumption with a possible Ga/Si disorder caveat, but the paper does not define I4_1md in terms of its own conclusions or rename a fitted value as a prediction. The 'possible nontriviality' statement is explicitly borrowed from isostructural compounds rather than derived here, which limits its strength but is not circular. No self-citation chain carries a load-bearing argument; citations to prior work on RTX disorder and symmetry are external. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited by equation or construction, and the derivation is self-contained with respect to the circularity criteria.

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

The central claims rest on the DFT magnetic ground state and on the structural assignment. The calculations use a hand-set Hubbard U and rely on standard DFT approximations. The transport interpretation additionally assumes a single-carrier Hall response in a multiband semimetal. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)

Effective Hubbard U on Gd 4f = 6 eV
Chosen following the Dudarev GGA+U scheme (Sec. II); not fitted in this work, but no U-sweep is shown, so the magnetic ground state and semimetallic band structure depend on this choice.
Resistivity power-law exponent n (Eq. 3) = 1.40
Best fit to rho(T) below TN in Sec. IV C; used to argue for semimetallic multi-carrier scattering. Descriptive fit, not a derived constant.
Magnetoresistance scaling exponent m (Eq. 4) = 1.48 at 5 K; 2 at 25 K
Fitted to MR(H) at two representative temperatures in Sec. IV C; the deviation from 2 is the basis for the nontrivial-characteristics speculation.
Curie-Weiss temperature theta_p = -81.1 K
Obtained from a linear fit to chi^{-1}(T) in Sec. IV B; used to conclude dominant AFM interactions. Not independently derived.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption PBE+U with a single U=6 eV correctly captures Gd 4f localization and orders the magnetic configurations correctly.
Section III A determines the AFM1 ground state and MAE from DFT total energies; no neutron diffraction or other experimental probe confirms the spin structure.
domain assumption The Rietveld refinement against the ordered I4_1md model uniquely identifies the noncentrosymmetric structure with no Ga/Si intermixing.
Section IV A; if Ga/Si disorder were present, the symmetry would be centrosymmetric I4_1/amd, which would invalidate the noncentrosymmetric framing.
ad hoc to paper A single-carrier Hall model is adequate for extracting carrier concentration and mobility.
Section IV D fits rho_xy = R0 H with one carrier type despite DFT showing both hole and electron pockets near the Fermi level.
domain assumption The measured magnetization and transport arise from the GdGaSi phase, not from magnetic impurity phases.
The sample is described as single-phase by PXRD and near-stoichiometric by EDX, but no specific magnetic impurity check beyond ZFC/FC coincidence is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigation of magnetic and magneto-transport properties in non-centrosymmetric antiferromagnetic semimetal GdGaSi." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4EDEH3NV

@misc{pith2026250621938,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigation of magnetic and magneto-transport properties in non-centrosymmetric antiferromagnetic semimetal GdGaSi},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4EDEH3NV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21938}
}

abstract

In this work, we investigated the magneto-transport and magnetic properties of GdGaSi, having non-centrosymmetric tetragonal structure, with space group $I4_1md$. Our theoretical results are supported by experimental studies. First-principles calculations reveal that GdGaSi is an antiferromagnetic semimetallic system, characterized by dominant electron-type charge carriers. In addition, the possible nontriviality of the crossing at the Fermi energy is consistent with isostructural LaPtSi-structured materials. The compound shows robust antiferromagnetic (AFM) ordering with a N\'eel temperature of 19 K, and spin-reorientation signature below $T_N$. The semimetallic nature with positive magnetoresistance ($\simeq$ 2\% at 2 K and 8 T) is observed from the magnetotransport data, having electrons as majority charge carrier, established from the Hall measurements. The strong correlation in magnetism and transport is supported by various observations, like (1) concordant transitions in $M(T)$ and $\rho (T)$ data, (2) change in the concentration and mobility of electron below $T_N$, and (3) splitting of Kohler's plots in the two branches across the transition. Thus, our findings establish GdGaSi as a material with intertwined magnetic and transport degrees of freedom, within noncentrosymmetric lattice.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21938 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** (a) Electronic band structure without SOC, along with the total and projected density of states. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (a) Electronic band structure without SOC, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (a)The Rietveld refined PXRD of the GdGaSi polycrystal. The difference between the measured and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (a) ZFC and FC modes temperature dependency of magnetic susceptibility (χ) under 0.5 T applied field in the 2–320 K range (left axis). Together with the Curie–Weiss fit (green solid line) carried out in the 25–320 K range (right axis), the inverse susceptibility (χ −1 …

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: (a) Kohler’s analysis is implemented to scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: (a) Hall resistivity in the field range of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

Steglich, J

F. Steglich, J. Aarts, C. D. Bredl, W. Lieke, D. Meschede, W. Franz, and H. Sch¨ afer, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 1892 (1979)

1979
[2]

Mathur, F

N. Mathur, F. Grosche, S. Julian, I. Walker, D. Freye, R. Haselwimmer, and G. Lonzarich, Nature 394, 39 (1998)

work page 1998
[3]

P. K. Mishra, A. Gautam, H. Singh, S. Panda, N. Mohap- atra, and A. K. Ganguli, Chem. Mater. 36, 5986 (2024)

work page 2024
[4]

P. K. Mishra, H. Singh, A. Gautam, G. Kumar, R. Umetsu, and A. K. Ganguli, Phys. Scr. 99, 095985 (2024)

work page 2024
[5]

M. S. Alam, A. Fakhredine, M. Ahmad, P. K. Tanwar, H.- Y. Yang, F. Tafti, G. Cuono, R. Islam, B. Singh, A. Lynnyk, C. Autieri, and M. Matusiak, Phys. Rev. B 107, 085102 (2023)

work page 2023
[6]

Gaudet, H.-Y

J. Gaudet, H.-Y. Yang, S. Baidya, B. Lu, G. Xu, Y. Zhao, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, C. M. Hoffmann, D. E. Graf, D. H. Torchinsky, et al., Nat. Mater. 20, 1650 (2021)

work page 2021
[7]

Banik, K

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

work page 2018
[8]

P. K. Mishra, S. Kumawat, S. Panda, N. Mohapatra, B. K. Mani, and A. K. Ganguli, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 37, 185601 (2025)

work page 2025

Show all 43 references

[9]

Gautam, P

A. Gautam, P. Kant Mishra, S. Banerjee, A. Sundare- san, and A. Kumar Ganguli, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 37, 115601 (2025)

2025
[10]

R. Lou, A. Fedorov, L. Zhao, A. Yaresko, B. B¨ uchner, and S. Borisenko, Phys. Rev. B 107, 035158 (2023)

2023
[11]

J. Gong, H. Wang, X.-P. Ma, X.-Y. Zeng, J.-F. Lin, K. Han, Y.-T. Wang, and T.-L. Xia, Chinese Physics B 33, 077302 (2024)

2024
[12]

H.-Y. Yang, B. Singh, J. Gaudet, B. Lu, C.-Y. Huang, W.-C. Chiu, S.-M. Huang, B. Wang, F. Bahrami, B. Xu, J. Franklin, I. Sochnikov, D. E. Graf, G. Xu, Y. Zhao, C. M. Hoffman, H. Lin, D. H. Torchinsky, C. L. Broholm, A. Bansil, and F. Tafti, Phys. Rev. B 103, 115143 (2021)

2021
[13]

Zhong, Z

R. Zhong, Z. Yu, X. Luo, C. Chen, B. Lv, Q. Luo, H. Yang, F. Gao, H. You, W. He, C. Fang, W. Ren, and S. Ma, J. Magn. Magn. Mater 617, 172855 (2025)

2025
[14]

D. Ram, S. Malick, Z. Hossain, and D. Kaczorowski, Phys. Rev. B 108, 024428 (2023)

2023
[15]

Zhang, Q.-X

L.-B. Zhang, Q.-X. Dong, J.-L. Bai, Q.-Y. Liu, J.-W. Cheng, C.-D. Li, P.-Y. Liu, Y.-R. Sun, Y. Huang, Z.-A. Ren, and G.-F. Chen, Chinese Physics B33, 067101 (2024)

2024
[16]

Wang, Y.-Q

C. Wang, Y.-Q. Guo, T. Wang, and S.-W. Yang, Chinese Physics B 29, 127502 (2020)

2020
[18]

Dhar and S

S. Dhar and S. Pattalwar, Journal of Magnetism and Mag- netic Materials 152, 22 (1996)

1996
[19]

J. Gong, H. Wang, K. Han, X.-Y. Zeng, X.-P. Ma, Y.-T. Wang, J.-F. Lin, X.-Y. Wang, and T.-L. Xia, Phys. Rev. B 109, 024434 (2024). 9

2024
[20]

W. Cao, Y. Xu, Y. Liao, C. Pei, J. Wu, Q. Wang, and Y. Qi, Anomalous hall effect in antiferromagnetic rgage (r = nd, gd) single crystals (2025), arXiv:2504.18313 [cond- mat.supr-con]

2025 arXiv
[21]

Puphal, C

P. Puphal, C. Mielke, N. Kumar, Y. Soh, T. Shang, M. Medarde, J. S. White, and E. Pomjakushina, Phys. Rev. Mater. 3, 024204 (2019)

2019
[22]

J. Nag, B. Das, S. Bhowal, Y. Nishioka, B. Bandyopadhyay, S. Sarker, S. Kumar, K. Kuroda, V. Gopalan, A. Kimura, K. G. Suresh, and A. Alam, Phys. Rev. B 110, 224436 (2024)

2024
[23]

Weitzer and K

F. Weitzer and K. Hiebl, Monatsh. Chem. 144, 915 (2013)

2013
[24]

P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Phys. Rev. B50, 17953 (1994)

1994
[25]

Kresse and J

G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169 (1996)

1996
[26]

Kresse and D

G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B 59, 1758 (1999)

1999
[27]

Hohenberg and W

P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. 136, B864 (1964)

1964
[28]

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

1996
[29]

H. J. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, Phys. Rev. B 13, 5188 (1976)

1976
[30]

S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. J. Humphreys, and A. P. Sutton, Phys. Rev. B 57, 1505 (1998)

1998
[31]

Bruker AXS, Germany, Topas 4.2 (2009)

2009
[32]

M. Lyu, J. Xiang, Z. Mi, H. Zhao, Z. Wang, E. Liu, G. Chen, Z. Ren, G. Li, and P. Sun, Phys. Rev. B 102, 085143 (2020)

2020
[33]

J. Gong, H. Wang, K. Han, X.-Y. Zeng, X.-P. Ma, Y.-T. Wang, J.-F. Lin, X.-Y. Wang, and T.-L. Xia, Phys. Rev. B 109, 024434 (2024)

2024
[34]

A. Laha, A. K. Kundu, N. Aryal, E. S. Bozin, J. Yao, S. Paone, A. Rajapitamahuni, E. Vescovo, T. Valla, M. Abeykoon, R. Jing, W. Yin, A. N. Pasupathy, M. Liu, and Q. Li, Phys. Rev. B 109, 035120 (2024)

2024
[35]

H. Weng, C. Fang, Z. Fang, B. A. Bernevig, and X. Dai, Phys. Rev. X 5, 011029 (2015)

2015
[36]

B. Q. Lv, H. M. Weng, B. B. Fu, X. P. Wang, H. Miao, J. Ma, P. Richard, X. C. Huang, L. X. Zhao, G. F. Chen, Z. Fang, X. Dai, T. Qian, and H. Ding, Phys. Rev. X 5, 031013 (2015)

2015
[37]

J. M. Coey, Magnetism and magnetic materials (Cam- bridge university press, 2010)

2010
[38]

C. Wang, Y. Guo, and T. Wang, J. Magn. Magn. Mater 526, 167739 (2021)

2021
[39]

P. L. Rossiter and J. Bass, Mater. Sci. Technol. (2006)

2006
[40]

Singh, P

H. Singh, P. Kant Mishra, and A. Kumar Ganguli, J. Appl. Phys. 136 (2024)

2024
[41]

J. Hu, Z. Tang, J. Liu, X. Liu, Y. Zhu, D. Graf, K. Myhro, S. Tran, C. N. Lau, J. Wei, and Z. Mao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 016602 (2016)

2016
[42]

J. Feng, Y. Pang, D. Wu, Z. Wang, H. Weng, J. Li, X. Dai, Z. Fang, Y. Shi, and L. Lu, Phys. Rev. B92, 081306 (2015)

2015
[43]

Xiong, S

J. Xiong, S. K. Kushwaha, T. Liang, J. W. Krizan, M. Hirschberger, W. Wang, R. J. Cava, and N. P. Ong, Science 350, 413 (2015)

2015
[44]

L. P. He, X. C. Hong, J. K. Dong, J. Pan, Z. Zhang, J. Zhang, and S. Y. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 246402 (2014)

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Steglich, J

F. Steglich, J. Aarts, C. D. Bredl, W. Lieke, D. Meschede, W. Franz, and H. Sch¨ afer, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 1892 (1979)

1979

[2] [2]

Mathur, F

N. Mathur, F. Grosche, S. Julian, I. Walker, D. Freye, R. Haselwimmer, and G. Lonzarich, Nature 394, 39 (1998)

work page 1998

[3] [3]

P. K. Mishra, A. Gautam, H. Singh, S. Panda, N. Mohap- atra, and A. K. Ganguli, Chem. Mater. 36, 5986 (2024)

work page 2024

[4] [4]

P. K. Mishra, H. Singh, A. Gautam, G. Kumar, R. Umetsu, and A. K. Ganguli, Phys. Scr. 99, 095985 (2024)

work page 2024

[5] [5]

M. S. Alam, A. Fakhredine, M. Ahmad, P. K. Tanwar, H.- Y. Yang, F. Tafti, G. Cuono, R. Islam, B. Singh, A. Lynnyk, C. Autieri, and M. Matusiak, Phys. Rev. B 107, 085102 (2023)

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Gaudet, H.-Y

J. Gaudet, H.-Y. Yang, S. Baidya, B. Lu, G. Xu, Y. Zhao, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, C. M. Hoffmann, D. E. Graf, D. H. Torchinsky, et al., Nat. Mater. 20, 1650 (2021)

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Banik, K

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

work page 2018

[8] [8]

P. K. Mishra, S. Kumawat, S. Panda, N. Mohapatra, B. K. Mani, and A. K. Ganguli, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 37, 185601 (2025)

work page 2025