Data-driven high-throughput search for the accelerated discovery of rare-earth-free permanent magnets

Amrita Bhattacharya; Junaid Jami; Nitish Bhagat

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 116 references

Data-driven high-throughput search for the accelerated discovery of rare-earth-free permanent magnets

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that two previously overlooked iron-based binary compounds, tetragonal ZnFe and Fe8N, are viable rare-earth-free permanent magnet candidates with high magnetization, strong uniaxial anisotropy, and Curie temperatures…

desk verdict Worth reading for the tetragonal ZnFe characterization, but the 'Tc > 1200 K' headline rests on mean-field numbers the paper itself concedes are unreliable. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01849 v1 pith:AUKFM7E7 submitted 2025-07-02 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Junaid Jami , Nitish Bhagat , Amrita Bhattacharya This is my paper

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords rare-earth-freepermanentmagnetshigh-throughputmaterialsscreeningmagnetocrystallineanisotropyCurietemperatureHeisenbergexchangeZnFeFe8Nalpha''-Fe16N2

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 tries to establish that a data-driven, high-throughput screening pipeline can find new permanent-magnet materials without rare-earth elements, and that two binary iron compounds in particular—tetragonal ZnFe and Fe8N—are strong candidates. Starting from roughly 20,000 binary compounds in a public materials database, the authors apply successive filters based on composition, crystal symmetry, magnetization, thermodynamic stability, and element cost, then run density functional theory on the survivors. They report that ZnFe and Fe8N both have ferromagnetic ground states, negative formation enthalpies, no imaginary phonon modes, and elastic constants that satisfy mechanical stability criteria. According to the calculations, both exceed 1 T saturation magnetization, 0.5 MJ/m3 uniaxial anisotropy, and 1200 K Curie temperature, with magnetic hardness parameters 0.85 and 0.70 that place them in the "gap magnet" class between cheap ferrites and rare-earth magnets. A sympathetic reader would care because these are earth-abundant compounds that, if synthesized, could ease dependence on rare-earth supply chains for high-temperature magnets.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on a multi-stage screening funnel followed by targeted first-principles calculations. The funnel uses database entries to remove compounds with rare-earth or costly elements, cubic symmetry, low magnetization, or poor thermodynamic stability, reducing about 20,000 binaries to 56 candidates. The load-bearing calculations are then: magnetocrystalline anisotropy energy via the torque method in a Green's-function multiple-scattering electronic-structure package; Heisenberg exchange parameters $J_{ij}$ extracted by a magnetic-force-theorem mapping; Curie temperature via the mean-field approximation; and structural stability via phonon spectra with no imaginary modes and via elastic stability criteria for the tetragonal lattice. The final ranking quantity is the magnetic hardness parameter $\kappa = \sqrt{K/(\mu_0 M_s^2)}$, which classifies a material as hard ($\kappa \ge 1$), semi-hard ($\kappa \ge 0.1$), and, here, as a gap magnet.

What would settle it

Measure the ordering temperature of a phase-pure bulk Fe8N sample: a value near the already reported thin-film estimate of about 813 K, rather than 1585 K, would falsify the high-Tc claim. For ZnFe, attempted synthesis followed by magnetization and torque measurements would test the predicted $M_s = 1.15$ T, $K = 0.76$ MJ/m3, and $T_c = 1230$ K directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that tetragonal ZnFe and Fe8N are viable rare-earth-free permanent magnet candidates that have been overlooked. For ZnFe, the paper reports a saturation magnetization of 1.15 T, a uniaxial anisotropy constant of 0.76 MJ/m3, a Curie temperature of 1230 K, and a magnetic hardness parameter of 0.85; for Fe8N the values are 1.21 T, 0.57 MJ/m3, 1585 K, and 0.70. Both compounds are described as potential "gap magnets," with performance between hard ferrites and rare-earth magnets, and ZnFe is stated to have no prior structural or magnetic reports. Fe8N is identified with the tetragonal alpha''-Fe16N2 family, which is already known for high magnetization but has been hard to synthesize as a single-phase bulk material.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that mean-field Curie temperatures computed from Heisenberg exchange parameters are accurate enough for ranking, even though mean-field theory generally overestimates the ordering temperature and the paper's own cited thin-film measurement for Fe8N is about 813 K rather than the computed 1585 K.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If ZnFe can be synthesized, it would provide an earth-abundant magnet with a calculated maximum energy product of 264 kJ/m3, above MnAl and well above hard ferrites.
If phase-pure bulk Fe8N can be stabilized, its calculated energy product of about 293 kJ/m3 and anisotropy field above 1 T make it a practical gap-magnet candidate.
The computed Curie temperatures above 1200 K imply both compounds could retain strong magnetization at operating temperatures where Nd-Fe-B becomes unusable.
The same two-stage pipeline—database filters followed by anisotropy, Curie temperature, phonon, and elastic checks—can be applied to other composition spaces to yield further candidates.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: because the mean-field approximation generally overestimates Curie temperatures, the true ordering temperatures of ZnFe and Fe8N are likely lower than the reported 1230 K and 1585 K; the paper's own cited thin-film value of about 813 K for Fe8N shows the size of the possible correction.
Editorial inference: ZnFe sits only 23 meV/atom above the convex hull, so its synthesizability is the weakest practical link; isoelectronic substitution at the Zn site, or epitaxial growth on a lattice-matched substrate, are natural testable routes to stabilize it.
Editorial inference: the binary-only search probably misses some promising ternary and quaternary gap magnets, so extending the same filter chain to three-element systems is a direct next step suggested by the paper's own logic.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing you should know: the part worth attention is the tetragonal ZnFe candidate, not the screening pipeline and not Fe8N. ZnFe is genuinely unstudied as far as they can tell, and their stability work on it is decent—negative formation enthalpy, no imaginary phonons, Born-Huang conditions satisfied, and the FM ground state checked against AFM/FiM configurations. That is real evidence and, if the compound can be made, a useful addition to the gap-magnet discussion. The screening workflow itself is competent but mostly follows earlier high-throughput programs; the thresholds are arbitrary rather than fitted, which is fine and not circular, but it is not a new method.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test says it is: Curie temperature. The abstract and conclusions lean on 'Tc > 1200 K' for both finalists, but these numbers come from a mean-field treatment that the authors concede generally overestimates Tc. For Fe8N the discrepancy is not small—they report 1585 K and in the same text cite a thin-film estimate around 813 K. That gap is too large to wave away. Since the same mean-field machinery produces ZnFe's 1230 K, I would not treat any of the Tc values as load-bearing until they are checked with something like RPA, Monte Carlo on the Jij, or at least a benchmark against a known ferromagnet with the same code. This is the kind of issue that should be fixed before publication, not in a footnote.

Two smaller things. First, the abstract says the literature review 'confirmed the novelty of ZnFe and Fe8N.' That is wrong for Fe8N: the paper itself describes alpha''-Fe16N2, known since 1951, and devotes a whole section to it. The novelty claim should be ZnFe only. Second, the text mentions the 2.8 T saturation magnetization for alpha''-Fe16N2 while Table I reports 1.21 T for Fe8N; the units and phase definitions need reconciliation, otherwise a reader cannot tell what is being predicted. Citation pattern looks fine; the self-citation to their own published PRB on mean-field Tc is a legitimate formalism reference, not an attempt to launder a result.

Who is this for? Someone working on rare-earth-free permanent magnet screening will want the ZnFe characterization and the accompanying stability data. It deserves a serious referee—conditional is the right verdict—but the referee should insist on better Tc evidence and a cleaned-up novelty framing. I would not build a paper on these Tc numbers as they stand.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a high-throughput computational search over roughly 20,000 binary entries from the Materials Project, reduced to 8,372 Fe/Co/Ni/Mn/Cr-containing binaries in hexagonal or tetragonal structures. Sequential filters on magnetization, thermodynamic stability/hull distance, composition, and oxide exclusion, followed by DFT-based magnetocrystalline anisotropy and mean-field Curie-temperature calculations, yield a shortlist of ten compounds; the authors focus on ZnFe and Fe8N. For these two compounds they verify a ferromagnetic ground state, negative formation enthalpy, phonon stability, and mechanical stability, and report saturation magnetization, uniaxial anisotropy, T_C, hardness parameter, and maximum energy product. The central claims are that ZnFe and Fe8N are novel, stable, high-T_C 'gap magnets' suitable as rare-earth-free permanent magnets.

Significance. The screening protocol is clearly described and mostly sound. Strengths include the absence of fitted experimental parameters in the property calculations, the explicit screening thresholds, and the independent stability checks (phonons, elastic constants, formation enthalpies) for the two finalists. If the Curie-temperature methodology can be validated, ZnFe in particular would be a genuinely interesting new candidate. However, the paper's headline depends on mean-field T_C values, which the authors themselves state generally overestimate, and the Fe8N value conflicts with an experimental estimate quoted in the paper. The significance is therefore contingent on a higher-order T_C calculation or a carefully qualified presentation.

major comments (2)

[Section IV C, Table I, and Section III] The Fe8N Curie temperature of 1585 K is presented as a headline result, but Section IV A itself cites a thin-film estimate of about 813 K (ref. [100]), and Section III states that the mean-field approximation 'generally overestimate[s]' T_C (ref. [62]). The discrepancy is a factor of roughly two, far larger than a typical mean-field correction, and because the abstract and conclusions use 'T_C > 1200 K' for Fe8N, this is a load-bearing claim rather than a side remark. I ask the authors to compute T_C beyond the mean-field level for both ZnFe and Fe8N using the same exchange parameters (for example, random-phase approximation or Monte Carlo), or to reframe the abstract and conclusions around the uncorrected mean-field estimates while explicitly acknowledging the 813 K benchmark.
[Abstract and Section IV A] The abstract's claim that the literature review 'confirmed the novelty of ZnFe and Fe8N' is contradicted by the paper's own discussion, which describes alpha''-Fe16N2 as extensively studied since its discovery, with thin-film measurements and multiple references (refs. [95-100]). Since Fe8N is one of the two finalists, the discovery claim should be restricted to ZnFe, or the notion of novelty should be explicitly defined as 'not previously proposed through this type of high-throughput screening' rather than 'no prior reports.'

minor comments (6)

[Section III] The text states that stability analysis narrowed the dataset to '220 viable compounds,' but Fig. 3(d) reports 200 compounds after the convex-hull filter and the following paragraph reports 56 candidates after further filtering; the number 220 appears to be an inconsistent leftover.
[Table I] The text says ten compounds remained after the T_C cutoff, but Table I lists eleven rows because FeB appears twice (tetragonal and orthorhombic); please clarify whether FeB is one candidate with two polymorphs or two separate candidates.
[Table I] The FeB (Ortho) row reports a maximum energy product of 1523.91 kJ/m^3; using Eq. (2) with the tabulated M_s = 1.39 T gives approximately 384 kJ/m^3, so this entry appears to be erroneous.
[Section II and Figs. 6(e), 7(e)] The exchange-cluster radius is given as 'R_clu of 7.0' without units; later figures use '7 a,' so please state explicitly whether the radius is in lattice parameters, angstroms, or atomic units.
[Section IV C] For Fe8N the manuscript quotes experimental M_s = 2.8 T and K = 1.9 MJ/m^3 from thin-film work but reports computed values of 1.21 T and 0.57 MJ/m^3 without discussing the differences; a brief comparison would help the reader judge the accuracy of the computed magnetic parameters.
[Sections IV B and V] The magnetic ground-state search for ZnFe and Fe8N is described only as considering 'multiple AFM and FiM arrangements,' with details relegated to the supplementary information; please summarize the ordering vectors and supercell sizes in the main text, since the FM ground state is central to all subsequent magnetic property claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the screening and property predictions rest on explicit first-principles calculations, with the only self-citation being a standard mean-field methodology reference.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The central quantities (Ms, K, Tc, kappa) are computed from DFT/SPRKKR first-principles calculations rather than fitted to the data being predicted. The screening criteria (Ms > 0.5 T, K > 0.5 MJ/m3, Tc > 650 K) are explicit, arbitrary design choices, so passing them is not a constructed equivalence. The Tc values come from Liechtenstein exchange parameters and a mean-field formula; the only self-citation is [53] for the mean-field 'approach', which is a standard published method, and the paper itself flags that mean-field generally overestimates Tc. This is a methodology citation, not a load-bearing self-citation importing a uniqueness claim. The methods are anchored to external benchmarks: computed Fe2P K (2.15 MJ/m3) agrees with experimental 2.32 MJ/m3, FeB Ms and K are compared to literature, and FeNi Tc (1134 K) is consistent with Kübler's mean-field value of 1130 K. The discrepancy between computed Fe8N Tc (1585 K) and the cited thin-film estimate (813 K) is an accuracy/validation concern, not a circularity: the predicted value is not defined in terms of the experimental estimate. The overstatement of Fe8N novelty in the abstract conflicts with the paper's own Section IV description of alpha''-Fe16N2 as extensively studied, but that is a framing issue, not a circular derivation. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no result is forced by a self-citation chain.

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

The central claim rests on standard DFT and statistical-physics approximations rather than new fitted parameters. The most fragile inputs are the mean-field Tc values and the limited magnetic-configuration search; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Magnetization screening threshold = 0.5 T
Hand-selected initial filter for saturation magnetization; directly determines which compounds proceed.
MAE screening threshold = 0.5 MJ/m3
Hand-selected cutoff for magnetocrystalline anisotropy constant K; determines the 18 compounds that receive Tc calculations.
TC screening cutoff = 650 K
Authors add 100 K margin to Coey's 550 K criterion to compensate for mean-field overestimation; hand-selected.
Hull-distance metastability threshold = 50 meV/atom
Standard literature cutoff applied to select ZnFe (23 meV/atom) and Fe8N (10 meV/atom) as metastable candidates.
Exchange cluster radius Rclu = 7.0
Cutoff for Heisenberg exchange couplings in SPRKKR; larger values would change the computed Tc slightly.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption GGA-PBE DFT provides quantitatively accurate MAE and exchange coupling for itinerant 3d magnets
Used throughout Section II; no benchmark against known compounds is reported for the specific candidates.
domain assumption Materials Project structures and magnetizations are reliable screening inputs
The screen starts from Materials Project entries; any errors in those entries propagate through the filters.
domain assumption Mean-field approximation gives usable Curie temperatures despite acknowledged overestimation
Section III states mean-field generally overestimates Tc; the final Tc values for ZnFe and Fe8N rely on this approximation.
ad hoc to paper The finite set of AFM and FiM configurations considered is enough to determine the magnetic ground state
Section V notes the number of possible configurations is practically indefinitely large; only a subset is tested.
domain assumption Heisenberg exchange mapping via the Liechtenstein method is valid for these compounds
Section II uses this mapping to compute Jij and then Tc.
domain assumption Born-Huang elastic criteria and phonon stability imply synthesizability
Sections IV.B and IV.C use these as evidence of stability, but they do not guarantee that the metastable phase can be synthesized.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data-driven high-throughput search for the accelerated discovery of rare-earth-free permanent magnets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AUKFM7E7

@misc{pith2026250701849,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data-driven high-throughput search for the accelerated discovery of rare-earth-free permanent magnets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AUKFM7E7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01849}
}

read the original abstract

An integrated data-driven approach combined with a high-throughput framework based on first-principles calculations was used to discover novel rare-earth-free permanent magnets, focusing on binary alloys. Compounds were screened systematically based on their elemental composition, structure, stability, and magnetization. Density functional theory (DFT) calculations were performed on the selected candidates to evaluate their magnetocrystalline anisotropy energy (MAE) and Curie temperature (Tc), resulting in the identification of ten promising materials. A thorough literature review was done to assess reports of prior existence, which confirmed the novelty of ZnFe and Fe8N. Their ferromagnetic ground state was re-established through DFT, and structural stability was confirmed via negative formation enthalpies, phonon spectra, and elastic criteria. Tetragonal ZnFe and Fe8N exhibit high saturation magnetization (>1 T), large anisotropy constants (>0.5 MJ/m^3), and high Tc (>1200 K). Their magnetic hardness parameters (kappa = 0.85 for ZnFe and 0.70 for Fe8N) further support their potential as gap magnets. These findings highlight the efficacy of our high-throughput screening, which may serve as a theoretical blueprint for the experimental realization of these materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01849 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Workflow showing the steps of filters used for our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Pie charts (a)–(f) illustrating the output of our high-throughput screening at different stages. (a) Distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Magnetic anisotropy energy (K) was calculated for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Bar chart showing the Curie temperature T [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Tetragonal unit cell of ZnFe. (b) Phonon dispersion curves of ZnFe, confirming its dynamical stability due to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Tetragonal unit cell of Fe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

[100]

Timoshevskii, V

A. Timoshevskii, V. Timoshevskii, and B. Yanchitsky, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 13, 1051 (2001)

work page 2001
[62]

Coey, Scripta Materialia 67, 524 (2012), viewpoint Set No

J. Coey, Scripta Materialia 67, 524 (2012), viewpoint Set No. 51: Magnetic Materials for Energy

work page 2012
[1]

S. R. Young, A. Maksov, M. Ziatdinov, Y. Cao, M. Burch, J. Balachandran, L. Li, S. Somnath, R. M. Patton, S. V. Kalinin, et al., Journal of Applied Physics 123 (2018)

2018
[2]

Zhang, Electronic Structure 3, 033001 (2021)

H. Zhang, Electronic Structure 3, 033001 (2021)

2021
[3]

Coey, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 47, 4671 (2011)

J. Coey, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 47, 4671 (2011)

2011
[4]

Gutfleisch, M

O. Gutfleisch, M. A. Willard, E. Br¨ uck, C. H. Chen, S. Sankar, and J. P. Liu, Advanced materials 23, 821 (2011)

2011
[5]

McCallum, L

R. McCallum, L. H. Lewis, R. Skomski, M. Kramer, and I. Anderson, Annual Review of Materials Research 44, 451 (2014)

2014
[6]

Maqsood, C

A. Maqsood, C. Chen, and T. J. Jacobsson, Advanced Science 11, 2401401 (2024)

2024

Show all 116 references

[8]

D. Goll, R. Loeffler, J. Herbst, R. Karimi, U. Pflanz, R. Stein, and G. Schneider, JOM 67, 1336 (2015)

2015
[9]

Huber, S

N. Huber, S. R. Kalidindi, B. Klusemann, and C. J. Cyron, Machine learning and data mining in materials science (2020)

2020
[10]

D. Liu, K. Guo, F. Tang, F. Mao, X. Liu, C. Hou, H. Wang, H. Lu, and X. Song, Chemistry of Materials 31, 10117 (2019)

2019
[11]

A. G. Kusne, T. Gao, A. Mehta, L. Ke, M. C. Nguyen, K.-M. Ho, V. Antropov, C.-Z. Wang, M. J. Kramer, C. Long, et al., Scientific reports 4, 6367 (2014)

2014
[12]

W. Lu, R. Xiao, J. Yang, H. Li, and W. Zhang, Journal of materiomics 3, 191 (2017)

2017
[13]

Leb` egue, T

S. Leb` egue, T. Bj¨ orkman, M. Klintenberg, R. M. Niem- inen, and O. Eriksson, Physical Review X 3, 031002 (2013)

2013
[14]

Eriksson, Nature Nanotechnology 13, 180 (2018)

O. Eriksson, Nature Nanotechnology 13, 180 (2018)

2018
[15]

C. C. Fischer, K. J. Tibbetts, D. Morgan, and G. Ceder, Nature materials 5, 641 (2006)

2006
[16]

Hautier, C

G. Hautier, C. Fischer, V. Ehrlacher, A. Jain, and G. Ceder, Inorganic chemistry 50, 656 (2011)

2011
[17]

H. C. Dam, T. L. Pham, T. B. Ho, A. T. Nguyen, and V. C. Nguyen, The Journal of Chemical Physics 140 (2014)

2014
[18]

M. Rupp, A. Tkatchenko, K.-R. M¨ uller, and O. A. Von Lilienfeld, Physical review letters 108, 058301 (2012)

2012
[19]

Hansen, G

K. Hansen, G. Montavon, F. Biegler, S. Fazli, M. Rupp, M. Scheffler, O. A. Von Lilienfeld, A. Tkatchenko, and K.-R. Muller, Journal of chemical theory and computa- tion 9, 3404 (2013). 14

2013
[20]

D. Goll, R. Loeffler, J. Herbst, R. Karimi, and G. Schneider, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 26, 064208 (2014)

2014
[21]

gap magnets

are mined using methods with significant ecologi- cal and economic challenges, compounded by a fragile global supply chain [4]. Hard ferrites, free of RE el- ements, offer an alternative with high uniaxial magne- tocrystalline anisotropy due to their low crystal symme- try, bu...

2024
[22]

Skomski and J

R. Skomski and J. Coey, Permanent magnetism insti- tute of physics publishing (1999)

1999
[23]

K. S. Stegen, Energy Policy 79, 1 (2015)

2015
[24]

Coey, Engineering 6, 119 (2020)

J. Coey, Engineering 6, 119 (2020)

2020
[25]

Skomski, P

R. Skomski, P. Manchanda, P. Kumar, B. Balamurugan, A. Kashyap, and D. J. Sellmyer, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 49, 3215 (2013)

2013
[26]

J. Lee, E. J. Lee, T.-Y. Hwang, J. Kim, and Y.-H. Choa, Scientific reports 10, 15929 (2020)

2020
[27]

Morgan, G

D. Morgan, G. Ceder, and S. Curtarolo, Measurement Science and Technology 16, 296 (2004)

2004
[28]

Mal and P

S. Mal and P. Sen, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 589, 171590 (2024)

2024
[29]

Vishina, O

A. Vishina, O. Y. Vekilova, T. Bj¨ orkman, A. Bergman, H. C. Herper, and O. Eriksson, Physical Review B 101, 094407 (2020)

2020
[30]

Vishina, D

A. Vishina, D. Hedlund, V. Shtender, E. K. Delczeg- Czirjak, S. R. Larsen, O. Y. Vekilova, S. Huang, L. Vi- tos, P. Svedlindh, M. Sahlberg, et al., Acta Materialia 212, 116913 (2021)

2021
[31]

H. Zhou, S. Yan, L. Wu, X. Wan, and D. Wang, Physical Review Materials 7, 044405 (2023)

2023
[32]

Nieves, S

P. Nieves, S. Arapan, J. Maudes-Raedo, R. Marticorena-S´ anchez, N. Del Br ´ ıo, A. Kovacs, C. Echevarria-Bonet, D. Salazar, J. Weischenberg, H. Zhang, et al., Computational materials science 168, 188 (2019)

2019
[33]

Kovacs, J

A. Kovacs, J. Fischbacher, M. Gusenbauer, H. Oezelt, H. C. Herper, O. Y. Vekilova, P. Nieves, S. Arapan, and T. Schrefl, Engineering 6, 148 (2020)

2020
[34]

Vishina, O

A. Vishina, O. Eriksson, and H. C. Herper, Materials Research Letters 11, 76 (2023)

2023
[35]

Weller, H

D. Weller, H. Br¨ andle, G. Gorman, C.-J. Lin, and H. Notarys, Applied physics letters 61, 2726 (1992)

1992
[36]

Vishina, O

A. Vishina, O. Eriksson, and H. C. Herper, Acta Mate- rialia 261, 119348 (2023)

2023
[37]

A. Jain, S. P. Ong, G. Hautier, W. Chen, W. D. Richards, S. Dacek, S. Cholia, D. Gunter, D. Skinner, G. Ceder, et al., APL materials 1, 011002 (2013)

2013
[38]

Hohenberg and W

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

1964
[39]

Kohn and L

W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. 140, A1133 (1965)

1965
[40]

Kresse and J

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

1996
[41]

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

1994
[42]

Kresse and D

G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B59, 1758 (1999)

1999
[43]

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

1996
[44]

Momma and F

K. Momma and F. Izumi, Journal of applied crystallog- raphy 44, 1272 (2011)

2011
[45]

Daalderop, P

G. Daalderop, P. Kelly, and M. Schuurmans, Physical Review B 41, 11919 (1990)

1990
[46]

X. Wang, R. Wu, D.-s. Wang, and A. Freeman, Physical Review B 54, 61 (1996)

1996
[47]

R. C. O’handley, Modern magnetic materials: principles and applications (Wiley, 2000)

2000
[48]

J. B. Staunton, L. Szunyogh, A. Buruzs, B. Gy- orffy, S. Ostanin, and L. Udvardi, Physical Re- view B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 74, 144411 (2006)

2006
[49]

Bornemann, J

S. Bornemann, J. Min´ ar, J. B. Staunton, J. Honolka, A. Enders, K. Kern, and H. Ebert, The European Phys- ical Journal D 45, 529 (2007)

2007
[50]

Ebert, D

H. Ebert, D. Koedderitzsch, and J. Minar, Reports on Progress in Physics 74, 096501 (2011)

2011
[51]

A. I. Liechtenstein, M. Katsnelson, V. Antropov, and V. Gubanov, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Ma- terials 67, 65 (1987)

1987
[52]

Lloyd and P

P. Lloyd and P. Smith, Advances in Physics 21, 69 (1972), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018737200101268

1972 doi
[53]

Zeller, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 20, 035220 (2007)

R. Zeller, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 20, 035220 (2007)

2007
[54]

J. Jami, R. Pathak, N. Venkataramani, K. G. Suresh, and A. Bhattacharya, Phys. Rev. B 108, 054431 (2023)

2023
[55]

Togo and I

A. Togo and I. Tanaka, Scripta Materialia108, 1 (2015)

2015
[56]

Born and K

M. Born and K. Huang, Dynamical theory of crystal lattices (Oxford university press, 1996)

1996
[57]

Skomski and J

R. Skomski and J. M. D. Coey, Permanent mag- netism, Studies in condensed matter physics (Institute of Physics Publishing, 1999)

1999
[58]

J. M. D. Coey, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 47, 4671 (2011)

2011
[59]

D. I. Khomskii, Transition metal compounds (Cam- bridge University Press, 2014)

2014
[60]

Bruno, Phys

P. Bruno, Phys. Rev. B 39, 865 (1989)

1989
[61]

Fazekas, Lecture notes on electron correlation and magnetism, Vol

P. Fazekas, Lecture notes on electron correlation and magnetism, Vol. 5 (World scientific, 1999)

1999
[63]

Pajda, J

M. Pajda, J. Kudrnovsk´ y, I. Turek, V. Drchal, and P. Bruno, Phys. Rev. B 64, 174402 (2001)

2001
[64]

J.-f. LIU, P. Vora, and M. Walmer, Journal of Iron and Steel Research, International 13, 319 (2006)

2006
[65]

J. M. D. Coey, Rare-earth iron permanent magnets, 54 (Oxford University Press, 1996)

1996
[66]

J. Cui, M. Kramer, L. Zhou, F. Liu, A. Gabay, G. Had- jipanayis, B. Balasubramanian, and D. Sellmyer, Acta Materialia 158, 118 (2018)

2018
[67]

H¨ aggstr¨ om, T

L. H¨ aggstr¨ om, T. Ericsson, R. W¨ appling, and K. Chan- dra, Physica Scripta 11, 47 (1975)

1975
[68]

Yamaguchi and H

K. Yamaguchi and H. Watanabe, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 22, 1210 (1967)

1967
[69]

Wodniecka, P

B. Wodniecka, P. Wodniecki, A. Kuli´ nska, and A. Hrynkiewicz, Journal of alloys and compounds 321, 1 (2001)

2001
[70]

Giefers and M

H. Giefers and M. Nicol, Journal of alloys and com- pounds 422, 132 (2006)

2006
[71]

Ehret and A

W. Ehret and A. Westgren, Journal of the American Chemical Society 55, 1339 (1933)

1933
[72]

B. C. Sales, J. Yan, W. R. Meier, A. D. Christianson, S. Okamoto, and M. A. McGuire, Physical Review Ma- terials 3, 114203 (2019)

2019
[73]

Radhakrishna and J

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

1996
[74]

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

1984
[75]

Kahal, A

L. Kahal, A. Zaoui, and M. Ferhat, Journal of applied physics 101 (2007)

2007
[76]

Wilkinson, N

M. Wilkinson, N. Gingrich, and C. Shull, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 2, 289 (1957)

1957
[77]

Suzuki, M

M. Suzuki, M. Shirai, and K. Motizuki, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 4, L33 (1992)

1992
[78]

Solid State Communications 81, 707 (1992). 15

1992
[79]

Li, W.-L

L.-H. Li, W.-L. Wang, L. Hu, and B.-B. Wei, Inter- metallics 46, 211 (2014)

2014
[80]

Bjurstr¨ om and H

T. Bjurstr¨ om and H. Arnfelt, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physikalis- che Chemie 4, 469 (1929)

1929
[81]

Zhdanova, M

O. Zhdanova, M. Lyakhova, and Y. G. Pastushenkov, Metal Science and Heat Treatment 55, 68 (2013)

2013
[82]

Petersen, M

J. Petersen, M. Aydin, and J. Knudsen, Physics Letters A 62, 192 (1977)

1977
[83]

Paulev´ e, A

J. Paulev´ e, A. Chamberod, K. Krebs, and A. Bourret, Journal of Applied Physics 39, 989 (1968)

1968
[84]

S. Goto, H. Kura, E. Watanabe, Y. Hayashi, H. Yanag- ihara, Y. Shimada, M. Mizuguchi, K. Takanashi, and E. Kita, Scientific reports 7, 13216 (2017)

2017
[85]

Aladerah and A

B. Aladerah and A. Obeidat, Solid State Sciences 148, 107437 (2024)

2024
[86]

K¨ ubler, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 18, 9795 (2006)

J. K¨ ubler, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 18, 9795 (2006)

2006
[87]

Senateur, A

J. Senateur, A. Rouault, R. Fruchart, J. Capponi, and M. Perroux, Materials Research Bulletin11, 631 (1976)

1976
[88]

Fujii, T

H. Fujii, T. Hokabe, T. Kamigaichi, and T. Okamoto, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 43, 41 (1977)

1977
[89]

Ishida, S

S. Ishida, S. Asano, and J. Ishida, Journal of Physics F: Metal Physics 17, 475 (1987)

1987
[90]

Kawamiya and K

N. Kawamiya and K. Adachi, Transactions of the Japan Institute of Metals 23, 296 (1982)

1982
[91]

X. Yan, Y. Lin, L. Li, and F. Sun, physica status solidi (b) 253, 2236 (2016)

2016
[92]

Golovin, V

I. Golovin, V. Palacheva, A. Bazlov, J. Cifre, and J. Pons, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 644, 959 (2015)

2015
[93]

Bak and M

P. Bak and M. H. Jensen, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 13, L881 (1980)

1980
[94]

L. Xu, H. Han, J. Fan, D. Shi, D. Hu, H. Du, L. Zhang, Y. Zhang, and H. Yang, Europhysics Letters117, 47004 (2017)

2017
[95]

Grytsiuk, M

S. Grytsiuk, M. Hoffmann, J.-P. Hanke, P. Mavropou- los, Y. Mokrousov, G. Bihlmayer, and S. Bl¨ ugel, Physi- cal Review B 100, 214406 (2019)

2019
[96]

Tessier, A

F. Tessier, A. Navrotsky, R. Niewa, A. Leineweber, H. Jacobs, S. Kikkawa, M. Takahashi, F. Kanamaru, and F. DiSalvo, Solid State Sciences 2, 457 (2000)

2000
[97]

K. H. Jack, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 208, 216 (1951)

1951
[98]

Mohapatra, X

J. Mohapatra, X. Liu, P. Joshi, and J. P. Liu, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 955, 170258 (2023)

2023
[99]

E. Bao, J. Zhao, Q. Gao, I. Shahid, H. Ma, Y. Luo, P. Liu, Y. Sun, and X.-Q. Chen, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17193 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[101]

Sugita, K

Y. Sugita, K. Mitsuoka, M. Komuro, H. Hoshiya, Y. Ko- zono, and M. Hanazono, Journal of applied physics 70, 5977 (1991)

1991
[102]

Singh, L

S. Singh, L. Lang, V. Dovale-Farelo, U. Herath, P. Tavadze, F.-X. Coudert, and A. H. Romero, Com- puter Physics Communications 267, 108068 (2021)

2021
[103]

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

2010
[104]

S. C. Westmoreland, C. Skelland, T. Shoji, M. Yano, A. Kato, M. Ito, G. Hrkac, T. Schrefl, R. F. Evans, and R. W. Chantrell, Journal of Applied Physics127 (2020)

2020
[105]

Islam, A

R. Islam, A. Alam, and J. Borah, AIP Advances 12, 065221 (2022)

2022
[106]

Goll and H

D. Goll and H. Kronm¨ uller, Naturwissenschaften 87, 423 (2000)

2000
[107]

Skomski and J

R. Skomski and J. Coey, Scripta Materialia 112, 3 (2016)

2016
[108]

Ochirkhuyag, D

T. Ochirkhuyag, D. Tuvshin, T. Tsevelmaa, S. Hong, K. Odbadrakh, and D. Odkhuu, Acta Materialia 268, 119755 (2024)

2024
[109]

Bhattacharyya, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 119, 1601 (2015)

S. Bhattacharyya, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 119, 1601 (2015)

2015
[110]

W. Sun, A. Holder, B. Orva˜ nanos, E. Arca, A. Zaku- tayev, S. Lany, and G. Ceder, Chemistry of Materials 29, 6936 (2017)

2017
[111]

Jim´ enez-Villacorta, J

F. Jim´ enez-Villacorta, J. Marion, T. Sepehrifar, M. Daniil, M. Willard, and L. Lewis, Applied Physics Letters 100 (2012)

2012
[112]

Mohapatra and J

J. Mohapatra and J. P. Liu (Elsevier, 2018) pp. 1–57

2018
[113]

Pareti, F

L. Pareti, F. Bolzoni, F. Leccabue, and A. Ermakov, Journal of applied physics 59, 3824 (1986)

1986
[114]

J. Wei, Z. Song, Y. Yang, S. Liu, H. Du, J. Han, D. Zhou, C. Wang, Y. Yang, A. Franz, et al., AIP Ad- vances 4 (2014)

2014
[115]

Kharel, P

P. Kharel, P. Thapa, P. Lukashev, R. F. Sabirianov, E. Y. Tsymbal, D. J. Sellmyer, and B. Nadgorny, Phys. Rev. B 83, 024415 (2011)

2011
[116]

Y. Yang, J. T. Lim, H.-D. Qian, J. Park, J.-W. Kim, O. L. Li, and C.-J. Choi, Journal of Alloys and Com- pounds 855, 157312 (2021)

2021
[117]

X. Guo, X. Chen, Z. Altounian, and J. Str¨ om-Olsen, Physical Review B 46, 14578 (1992)

1992

Pith tools

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

[1] [100]

Timoshevskii, V

A. Timoshevskii, V. Timoshevskii, and B. Yanchitsky, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 13, 1051 (2001)

work page 2001

[2] [62]

Coey, Scripta Materialia 67, 524 (2012), viewpoint Set No

J. Coey, Scripta Materialia 67, 524 (2012), viewpoint Set No. 51: Magnetic Materials for Energy

work page 2012

[3] [1]

S. R. Young, A. Maksov, M. Ziatdinov, Y. Cao, M. Burch, J. Balachandran, L. Li, S. Somnath, R. M. Patton, S. V. Kalinin, et al., Journal of Applied Physics 123 (2018)

2018

[4] [2]

Zhang, Electronic Structure 3, 033001 (2021)

H. Zhang, Electronic Structure 3, 033001 (2021)

2021

[5] [3]

Coey, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 47, 4671 (2011)

J. Coey, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 47, 4671 (2011)

2011

[6] [4]

Gutfleisch, M

O. Gutfleisch, M. A. Willard, E. Br¨ uck, C. H. Chen, S. Sankar, and J. P. Liu, Advanced materials 23, 821 (2011)

2011

[7] [5]

McCallum, L

R. McCallum, L. H. Lewis, R. Skomski, M. Kramer, and I. Anderson, Annual Review of Materials Research 44, 451 (2014)

2014

[8] [6]

Maqsood, C

A. Maqsood, C. Chen, and T. J. Jacobsson, Advanced Science 11, 2401401 (2024)

2024