Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 79 references

Resilient cluster Mott states in layered Nb$_3$Cl$_8$ against pressure-induced symmetry breaking

T0 review · 3 major / 8 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 The paper claims that at 9.7 GPa Nb3Cl8 remains a cluster Mott insulator with a shrunken gap of about 0.58 eV, because pressure-induced symmetry breaking widens the bands but does not destroy the molecular state.

desk verdict A well-executed DFT/cRPA study of Nb3Cl8 under pressure, but the Hubbard-I solver leaves the central robustness claim about the cluster Mott state effectively untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07624 v2 pith:PYG3YVNX submitted 2025-07-10 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Hongbin Qu , Xiaoqun Wang , Hai-Qing Lin , ang Gang Li This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 71.27.+a71.30.+h
keywords clusterMottinsulatorNb3Cl8pressure-inducedsymmetrybreakingC3vtoCsDFT+DMFTHubbard-IsolverchargegapcRPA
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 asks why the layered compound Nb3Cl8 stays insulating at 9.7 GPa even though pressure distorts its crystal structure. Its answer is that the high-pressure state is still a cluster Mott insulator—electrons move freely inside each Nb3 trimer but cannot hop between trimers—and that the measured drop of the charge gap from about 1 eV to about 0.58 eV comes from the pressure-driven distortion of the trimer from $C_{3v}$ to $C_s$ symmetry. That distortion lifts the degeneracy of the molecular orbitals and broadens the bands, while increased screening lowers both the on-site and inter-site Coulomb repulsions. The paper's central claim is that the cluster Mott state is resilient against this local symmetry breaking, so pressure can continuously tune the gap instead of immediately destroying it.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Nb3 trimer as a molecular unit with one unpaired electron in a half-filled molecular orbital. At ambient pressure the three Nb sites are equivalent, and the tight-binding Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), $-\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&t&t\\t&0&t\\t&t&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)+\mu I$, has $C_{3v}$ symmetry, producing a symmetric $a_1$ state and a degenerate $e$ doublet. Under pressure the trimer becomes isosceles, with hopping $t$ on the two short bonds and $t'$ on the long bond and on-site energies $\mu \neq \mu'$ (Eq. (3)); the eigenvalues in Eq. (4) split, lifting the degeneracy and broadening the bands. The paper builds Wannier-based tight-binding models (one- and three-orbital for the monolayer, two- and six/four-orbital for the bulk) and evaluates the on-site $U$ and inter-site $V$ Coulomb repulsions with the constrained random-phase approximation, finding that $V$ stays comparable to $U$ even at high pressure. Feeding these parameters into DMFT with a Hubbard-I impurity solver produces the spectral functions whose finite gaps at high pressure, together with the molecular shape of the Wannier functions, establish the resilient cluster Mott state.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to recompute the DFT+DMFT spectral function for the bulk 9.7 GPa structure with a numerically exact impurity solver such as continuous-time quantum Monte Carlo: if a finite density of states appears at the Fermi level, the predicted 0.58 eV cluster Mott gap is an artifact of the Hubbard-I solver.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the experimentally observed insulating state of Nb3Cl8 at 9.7 GPa is a cluster Mott state rather than a band insulator or a conventional atomic Mott state. Using density-functional theory combined with dynamical mean-field theory (DFT+DMFT) on the experimentally determined high-pressure structure, the authors find that pressure makes each Nb3 trimer isosceles: two Nb–Nb bonds shrink to 2.77 Å while the third stretches to 3.14 Å, and one Nb atom moves out of the plane by 0.28 Å, lowering the local point symmetry from $C_{3v}$ to $C_s$. This symmetry breaking lifts the degeneracy of the two $e$-type molecular orbitals, broadens the formerly flat bands, and strengthens screening, so the cRPA Coulomb parameters $U$ and $V$ are reduced. Nevertheless, the Wannier functions of the relevant band keep their molecular shape, the non-local intra-trimer repulsion $V$ remains comparable to $U$, and the DMFT spectral function shows a finite gap of 0.58 eV for the bulk, reproducing the experimental value. The agreement between a single-orbital molecular model and a three-orbital atomic model at both ambient and high pressure is taken as evidence that the cluster Mott gap survives the symmetry breaking.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation's weak point is that its impurity solver is pre-biased toward insulating behavior: for a half-filled cluster it always produces a gap at any positive Coulomb interaction, so it cannot test whether the high-pressure state might actually be a metal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 9.7 GPa, bulk Nb3Cl8 is a cluster Mott insulator with a gap of about 0.58 eV, not a band insulator.
  • The gap reduction under pressure results from the C3v-to-Cs symmetry breaking, which broadens the bandwidth, combined with enhanced screening that lowers the Coulomb repulsions.
  • The cluster Mott state is robust against local symmetry breaking, so pressure can continuously tune the gap rather than abruptly destroying the insulator.
  • The same DFT+DMFT framework can be used to study pressure-induced symmetry breaking in other transition-metal cluster compounds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the Hubbard-I solver always returns a gapped spectrum for a half-filled cluster, the predicted 0.58 eV gap should be rechecked with a numerically exact impurity solver before the resilience claim is treated as settled.
  • The same distortion mechanism suggests uniaxial strain could tune the trimer asymmetry and hence the cluster Mott gap more selectively than hydrostatic pressure.
  • If the cluster Mott state is truly resilient, metallization at higher pressures likely requires a structural transition or a distortion strong enough to destroy the molecular orbital, not a smooth closing of the gap.
  • The isostructural compounds Nb3Br8 and Nb3I8 are natural next targets, where pressure may show a similarly reduced but finite gap.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies the layered cluster Mott insulator Nb3Cl8 at ambient pressure and at 9.7 GPa, combining DFT band-structure calculations, Wannier downfolding, cRPA estimates of interaction parameters, and DFT+DMFT spectral-function calculations. The authors find a pressure-induced local symmetry breaking of the Nb3 trimer from C3v to Cs, which enhances bandwidth and lifts band degeneracy. They report that the high-pressure phase remains a cluster Mott insulator with a reduced charge gap (about 0.58 eV in bulk), and attribute the gap reduction to both increased bandwidth and reduced Coulomb interactions. The central claim is that the experimentally observed insulating state at 9.7 GPa is still a cluster Mott gap rather than a different type of insulator.

Significance. If the central claim were fully established, this would be a valuable contribution: it would provide the first systematic theoretical account of how pressure-induced local symmetry breaking affects a cluster Mott state, with quantitative cRPA interaction parameters and Wannier-function evidence for molecular orbital character. The DFT, Wannier, and cRPA portions are carefully executed and internally consistent, and the qualitative symmetry-broken tight-binding model in Sec. II.C is instructive. However, the DMFT leg uses the Hubbard-I impurity solver, which at half-filling always produces an insulating spectral function for any positive U and cannot describe a correlated metal. The finite 0.58 eV gap at high pressure is therefore a consequence of the solver ansatz rather than a demonstration that correlations stabilize the insulating state against the pressure-enhanced bandwidth and reduced U. The robustness claim is currently untested, which substantially lowers the strength of the paper's main conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.D, Eq. (5) and Fig. 4] The DMFT calculations use the Hubbard-I impurity solver (PACS). For the half-filled effective models studied here, Hubbard-I yields a gapped spectral function for any positive on-site U and has no quasiparticle pole, so it cannot produce a correlated metallic solution or a Mott transition. Consequently, the finite HP gap of 0.58 eV in Fig. 4(f) is not evidence that the cluster Mott state survives pressure-induced symmetry breaking; the insulating answer is preordained by the solver. To support the abstract's claim that the HP ground state is still a cluster Mott insulator, the authors should repeat the DMFT with an impurity solver that can in principle return a metal (e.g., CT-HYB) and show that the actual cRPA parameters place the system on the insulating side, or else explicitly state this limitation and soften the central claim.
  2. [Fig. 4(d,f) and Table I] The LP bulk gap is computed from a six-orbital model with U0=2.17 eV and V_in=1.29 eV, while the HP bulk gap is computed from a four-orbital model with U0=0.97 eV and V_in12=0.61 eV. The reported gap reduction from 1.0 to 0.58 eV may therefore be influenced by the change in model dimension and the different treatment of orbitals/bands, not solely by increased bandwidth and reduced Coulomb interactions. The authors should either present LP and HP results for models of the same size or demonstrate explicitly that the model-size change does not affect the comparison; otherwise the quantitative attribution of the gap reduction to W and U is not isolated.
  3. [Sec. II.D and Table I] The monolayer LP single-orbital gap of 1.9 eV is essentially equal to the cRPA U0=1.90 eV listed in Table I. This equality is a hallmark of the atomic-limit nature of the Hubbard-I solver and reinforces that the computed gaps are not a nontrivial many-body result that can discriminate between a Mott insulator and a band insulator. The authors should discuss this point and avoid presenting the Hubbard-I gap values as quantitative predictions.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Sec. II.B] There is a typo in the code name: 'V ASP' should be 'VASP', and 'Pacakge' should be 'Package'.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] 'repsectively' should be 'respectively'.
  3. [Sec. II.C] The phrase 'the the three wannier functions' contains a duplicated article; also, 'a equal side lengths' in the Fig. 1 caption should be 'equal side lengths'.
  4. [Table I caption] 'additionlly' should be 'additionally'.
  5. [Sec. III] 'presistance' should be 'persistence', and 'modular character' should likely be 'molecular character'.
  6. [Fig. 4 caption] The sentence 'In these two calculations, a two-orbital and a four-orbital TB model for the monolayer and the bulk are used' is ambiguous; please specify which model corresponds to which panel.
  7. [General] The manuscript does not quote the experimentally measured gap value at 9.7 GPa; providing that number and an explicit comparison with the computed 0.58 eV would strengthen the quantitative claim.
  8. [General] There is no computational-details section describing the DFT parameters (plane-wave cutoff, k-mesh, pseudopotentials) or the DMFT parameters (number of Matsubara frequencies, convergence criteria). Such details should be added for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Hubbard-I solver at half-filling forces an insulating spectrum, so the HP cluster-Mott conclusion is an artifact of the solver ansatz rather than a test of robustness.

  1. other [Section II.D, 'Cluster Mott state at both LP and HP phases' (paragraph beginning 'With the TB models...') and Fig. 4 caption.]
    "We solved the DMFT equation with our home-made Package for Analyzing Correlated Systems (PACS) and employed the Hubbard-I as impurity solver [78, 79]. ... One unpaired electron occupies this band leading to a standard half-filled Hubbard model which develops lower and upper Hubbard bands under local interaction U."

    Hubbard-I is the atomic-limit impurity solver. For a half-filled band it returns an insulator for any U > 0: the self-energy has no quasiparticle weight and the spectrum consists only of lower and upper Hubbard bands separated by a gap. It cannot produce a correlated metal or a Mott transition. The effective models used here are all half-filled (one unpaired electron per Nb3 trimer), so the DMFT calculation is guaranteed to return a gapped spectral function regardless of U/W and regardless of the pressure-induced C3v -> Cs symmetry breaking.

full rationale

The paper's interaction parameters come from cRPA and hoppings from Wannier downfolding; no experimental quantity is fitted to produce the gap. The molecular Wannier character and V_in ~ U are genuine independent inputs. Thus the paper is not globally circular. However, the central robustness claim—that the HP phase remains a cluster Mott insulator despite pressure—rests on a DFT+DMFT calculation whose Hubbard-I impurity solver always returns an insulator for the half-filled cluster models. The gap prediction is therefore forced by the solver's atomic-limit ansatz; a solver able to produce a correlated metal (e.g., CT-HYB or IPT) would be needed to test the claim. The LP cluster Mott state is supported by prior experiment and independent theory, so self-citations are not load-bearing. Overall: partial circularity at the central step, score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No target-fitted free parameters enter the quantitative calculation: hoppings come from Wannier downfolding and interactions from cRPA. The load-bearing assumptions are the Hubbard-I solver, the single experimental HP structure, and the half-filled molecular-orbital picture. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • t, t', mu, mu' in the qualitative symmetry-broken tight-binding model = not stated
    Introduced in Section II.C, Eqs. (1) to (4), to illustrate the C3v to Cs splitting. They are not used in the quantitative DMFT gap calculation, so they do not influence the central numbers.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Hubbard-I solver faithfully represents the local self-energy of the Nb3 cluster in the relevant U/W range.
    Invoked in Section II.D. At half-filling and for any finite U it returns an insulating spectral function, so it cannot distinguish a resilient Mott insulator from a solver artifact.
  • domain assumption The experimental HP structure at 9.7 GPa from Ref. [66] is accurate and representative of the pressure-induced local symmetry breaking.
    All HP band structures, Wannier functions, cRPA parameters and DMFT gaps are computed for this single measured structure; no structural relaxation or pressure series is tested.
  • domain assumption The seven valence electrons per Nb3 trimer occupy molecular orbitals with exactly one half-filled molecular orbital.
    This electron count underlies the half-filled Hubbard and cluster-Mott description; it follows from nominal oxidation states and is assumed throughout.
  • domain assumption The truncated Wannier models capture the low-energy physics relevant to the charge gap.
    The three-orbital LP and two-orbital HP monolayer models, plus doubled bulk models, are fitted to low-energy DFT bands; contributions from higher bands such as the e_g manifold are neglected.
  • domain assumption cRPA interactions in the truncated basis have no uncontrolled double counting with the DFT+DMFT scheme.
    Standard practice, but the paper does not discuss double-counting corrections or solver-convergence checks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resilient cluster Mott states in layered Nb$_3$Cl$_8$ against pressure-induced symmetry breaking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PYG3YVNX

@misc{pith2026250707624,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resilient cluster Mott states in layered Nb$_3$Cl$_8$ against pressure-induced symmetry breaking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PYG3YVNX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07624}
}
abstract

In this work, by combining density-functional theory (DFT) with dynamical mean-field calculations (DMFT), we compare the crystal and electronic structures of the prototype cluster Mott insulator Nb$_{3}$Cl$_8$ at ambient and high-pressure. We explain the finite but significantly reduced charge gap experimentally observed at $P=9.7$ GPa. We reveal a local symmetry breaking of the Nb$_{3}$ trimer under pressure, reducing its symmetry from $C_{3v}$ to $C_{s}$. This leads to a strong bandwidth enhancement and a lift of band degeneracy. Crucially, despite the significant change of band details, the cluster Mott insulating state is robust against local symmetry breaking. We show that the experimental observed gap under pressure is still a cluster Mott gap and its reduced value stems from both increased bandwidth and reduced Coulomb interactions under pressure. Our study provides the first systematic theoretical elucidation of how pressure-induced symmetry breaking dictates the cluster Mott state, establishing a robust foundation for understanding the intricate relationship between symmetry, local/non-local correlations, and emergent quantum states in correlated cluster compounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07624 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hubbard, Proc

    J. Hubbard, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 276, 238 (1963)

    work page 1963

  2. [2]

    N. F. Mott, Rev. Mod. Phys. 40, 677 (1968)

    1968

  3. [3]

    P. W. Anderson, Science 177, 393 (1972)

    work page 1972

  4. [4]

    Dagotto, Science 309, 257 (2005), publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science

    E. Dagotto, Science 309, 257 (2005), publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Imada, A

    M. Imada, A. Fujimori, and Y. Tokura, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 1039 (1998)

    1998

  6. [6]

    Universality and Critical Behavior at the Mott transition

    P. Limelette, A. Georges, D. J´erome, P. Wzietek, P. Metcalf, and J. M. Honig, Science 302, 89 (2003), arXiv:cond-mat/0406351 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    D. B. McWhan, T. M. Rice, and J. P. Remeika, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 1384 (1969)

    work page 1969

  8. [8]

    D. B. McWhan and J. P. Remeika, Phys. Rev. B2, 3734 (1970)

    work page 1970

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    D. B. McWhan, A. Menth, J. P. Remeika, W. F. Brinkman, and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B7, 1920 (1973)

    1973

  2. [10]

    Kuwamoto, J

    H. Kuwamoto, J. M. Honig, and J. Appel, Phys. Rev. B22, 2626 (1980)

    1980

  3. [11]

    Limelette, A

    P. Limelette, A. Georges, D. J ´erome, P. Wzietek, P. Metcalf, and J. M. Honig, Science 302, 89 (2003), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1088386

    2003 doi

  4. [12]

    van Elp, R

    J. van Elp, R. H. Potze, H. Eskes, R. Berger, and G. A. Sawatzky, Phys. Rev. B44, 1530 (1991)

    1991

  5. [13]

    G. A. Sawatzky and J. W. Allen, Phys. Rev. Lett.53, 2339 (1984)

    1984

  6. [14]

    van Elp, J

    J. van Elp, J. L. Wieland, H. Eskes, P. Kuiper, G. A. Sawatzky, F. M. F. de Groot, and T. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. B44, 6090 (1991)

    1991

  7. [15]

    Shimizu, K

    Y. Shimizu, K. Miyagawa, K. Kanoda, M. Maesato, and G. Saito, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 107001 (2003), arXiv:cond-mat/0307483 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2003 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Kanoda and R

    K. Kanoda and R. Kato, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 2, 167 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Y. Zhou, K. Kanoda, and T.-K. Ng, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 025003 (2017), arXiv:1607.03228 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    F. A. Cotton, Inorg. Chem. 3, 1217 (1964)

    1964

  11. [19]

    W. H. McCarroll, Inorg. Chem. 16, 3351 (1977)

    1977

  12. [20]

    F. A. Cotton, M. Shang, and Z. S. Sun, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 113, 3007 (1991), publisher: American Chemical Society

    1991

  13. [21]

    J. P. Sheckelton, J. R. Neilson, D. G. Soltan, and T. M. McQueen, Nat. Mater.11, 493 (2012), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2012

  14. [22]

    Flint and P

    R. Flint and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 217201 (2013), publisher: American Physical Society

    2013

  15. [23]

    Mourigal, W

    M. Mourigal, W. T. Fuhrman, J. P. Sheckelton, A. Wartelle, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, D. L. Abernathy, T. M. McQueen, and C. L. Broholm, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 027202 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Chen, H.-Y

    G. Chen, H.-Y. Kee, and Y. B. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 93, 245134 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Chen and P

    G. Chen and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 97, 035124 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Nakata, K

    Y. Nakata, K. Sugawara, A. Chainani, H. Oka, C. Bao, S. Zhou, P.-Y. Chuang, C.-M. Cheng, T. Kawakami, Y. Saruta, T. Fukumura, S. Zhou, T. Takahashi, and T. Sato, Nat. Commun. 12, 5873 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Balents, Nature (London) 464, 199 (2010)

    L. Balents, Nature (London) 464, 199 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    Sipos, A

    B. Sipos, A. F. Kusmartseva, A. Akrap, H. Berger, L. Forr´o, and E. Tutiˇs, Nat. Mater. 7, 960 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    Y. Chen, W. Ruan, M. Wu, S. Tang, H. Ryu, H.-Z. Tsai, R. L. Lee, S. Kahn, F. Liou, C. Jia, O. R. Albertini, H. Xiong, T. Jia, Z. Liu, J. A. Sobota, A. Y. Liu, J. E. Moore, Z.-X. Shen, S. G. Louie, S.-K. Mo, and M. F. Crommie, Nat. Phys.16, 218 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    K. T. Law and P. A. Lee, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.114, 6996 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    W.-Y. He, X. Y. Xu, G. Chen, K. T. Law, and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 046401 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    D. Shin, N. Tancogne-Dejean, J. Zhang, M. S. Okyay, A. Rubio, and N. Park, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 196406 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    S. Shen, C. Wen, P. Kong, J. Gao, J. Si, X. Luo, W. Lu, Y. Sun, G. Chen, and S. Yan, Nat. Commun.13, 2156 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    W. Ruan, Y. Chen, S. Tang, J. Hwang, H.-Z. Tsai, R. L. Lee, M. Wu, H. Ryu, S. Kahn, F. Liou, C. Jia, A. Aikawa, C. Hwang, F. Wang, Y. Choi, S. G. Louie, P. A. Lee, Z.-X. Shen, S.-K. Mo, and M. F. Crommie, Nat. Phys.17, 1154 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Q. Tian, C. Ding, X. Qiu, Q. Meng, K. Wang, F. Yu, Y. Mu, C. Wang, J. Sun, and Y. Zhang, Sci. China- Phys. Mech. Astron. 67, 256811 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Y. D. Wang, W. L. Yao, Z. M. Xin, T. T. Han, Z. G. Wang, L. Chen, C. Cai, Y. Li, and Y. Zhang, Nat. Commun. 11, 4215 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Ma ˜nas-Valero, B

    S. Ma ˜nas-Valero, B. M. Huddart, T. Lancaster, E. Coronado, and F. L. Pratt, npj Quantum Mater.6, 69 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Klanj ˇsek, A

    M. Klanj ˇsek, A. Zorko, R. ˇZitko, J. Mravlje, Z. Jagli ˇci´c, P. K. Biswas, P. Prelovˇsek, D. Mihailovic, and D. Ar ˇcon, Nat. Phys. 13, 1130 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Pocha, D

    R. Pocha, D. Johrendt, and R. P ¨ottgen, Chem. Mater. 12, 2882 (2000)

    2000

  32. [40]

    M. M. Abd-Elmeguid, B. Ni, D. I. Khomskii, R. Pocha, D. Johrendt, X. Wang, and K. Syassen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 126403 (2004)

    2004

  33. [41]

    Geirhos, S

    K. Geirhos, S. Reschke, S. Ghara, S. Krohns, P. Lunkenheimer, and I. K´ezsm´arki, Phys. Status Solidi B 259, 2100160 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    S. A. Nikolaev and I. V. Solovyev, Phys. Rev. B 99, 100401 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    H. Lee, M. Y. Jeong, J.-H. Sim, H. Yoon, S. Ryee, and M. J. Han, Europhys. Lett. 125, 47005 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    H.-S. Kim, K. Haule, and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B 102, 081105 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Hozoi, M

    L. Hozoi, M. S. Eldeeb, and U. K. R ¨oßler, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 022017 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Petersen, P

    T. Petersen, P. Bhattacharyya, U. K. R¨oßler, and L. Hozoi, Nat. Commun. 14, 5218 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    K. T. Law and P. A. Lee, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 6996 (2017), publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

    2017

  40. [48]

    Zhang, S

    X. Zhang, S. Yan, and G. Li, Phys. Rev. B 110, 235137 (2024), publisher: American Physical Society

    2024

  41. [49]

    G. V. Khvorykh, A. V. Shevelkov, V. A. Dolgikh, and B. A. Popovkin, J. Solid State Chem. 120, 311 (1995)

    1995

  42. [50]

    J. R. Kennedy and A. Simon, Inorg. Chem. 30, 2564 (1991), publisher: American Chemical Society. 7

    1991

  43. [51]

    J. R. Kennedy, P. Adler, R. Dronskowski, and A. Simon, Inorg. Chem. 35, 2276 (1996), publisher: American Chemical Society

    1996

  44. [52]

    J. P. Sheckelton, K. W. Plumb, B. A. Trump, C. L. Broholm, and T. M. McQueen, Inorg. Chem. Front. 4, 481 (2017), publisher: The Royal Society of Chemistry

    2017

  45. [53]

    Haraguchi, C

    Y. Haraguchi, C. Michioka, M. Ishikawa, Y. Nakano, H. Yamochi, H. Ueda, and K. Yoshimura, Inorg. Chem. 56, 3483 (2017), publisher: American Chemical Society

    2017

  46. [54]

    G. J. Miller, J. Alloys Compd. 217, 5 (1995)

    1995

  47. [55]

    C. M. Pasco, I. El Baggari, E. Bianco, L. F. Kourkoutis, and T. M. McQueen, ACS Nano 13, 9457 (2019), publisher: American Chemical Society

    2019

  48. [56]

    Z. Sun, H. Zhou, C. Wang, S. Kumar, D. Geng, S. Yue, X. Han, Y. Haraguchi, K. Shimada, P. Cheng, L. Chen, Y. Shi, K. Wu, S. Meng, and B. Feng, Nano Lett. 22, 4596 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    J. Hu, X. Zhang, C. Hu, J. Sun, X. Wang, H.-Q. Lin, and G. Li, Commun. Phys.6, 1 (2023), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2023

  50. [58]

    Grytsiuk, M

    S. Grytsiuk, M. I. Katsnelson, E. G. C. P. v. Loon, and M. R¨osner, npj Quantum Mater. 9, 1 (2024), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2024

  51. [59]

    S. Gao, S. Zhang, C. Wang, S. Yan, X. Han, X. Ji, W. Tao, J. Liu, T. Wang, S. Yuan, G. Qu, Z. Chen, Y. Zhang, J. Huang, M. Pan, S. Peng, Y. Hu, H. Li, Y. Huang, H. Zhou, S. Meng, L. Yang, Z. Wang, Y. Yao, Z. Chen, M. Shi, H. Ding, H. Yang, K. Jiang, Y. Li, H. Lei, Y. Shi, H. W...

    2023

  52. [60]

    Aretz, S

    J. Aretz, S. Grytsiuk, X. Liu, G. Feraco, C. Knekna, M. Waseem, Z. Dan, M. Bianchi, P. Hofmann, M. N. Ali, M. I. Katsnelson, A. Grubi ˇsi´c- ˇCabo, H. U. R. Strand, E. G. C. P. v. Loon, and M. R ¨osner, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2501.10320 (2025), arXiv:2501.10320 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 doi

  53. [61]

    H. Liu, W. Li, Z. Zhou, H. Qu, J. Zhang, W. Hu, C. Wen, N. Wang, H. Deng, G. Li, and S. Yan, arXiv (2025), arXiv:2505.04400 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 17 (2006)

    2006

  55. [63]

    M. S. Laad and L. Craco, Adv. Quantum Technol. 7, 2200186 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Feng, Acta Phys

    D.-L. Feng, Acta Phys. Sin. 72, 237101 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    Milloch, M

    A. Milloch, M. Fabrizio, and C. Giannetti, npj Spintronics 2, 49 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Jiang, D

    Z. Jiang, D. Jiang, Y. Wang, C. Li, K. Liu, T. Wen, F. Liu, Z. Zhou, and Y. Wang, Sci. China- Phys. Mech. Astron. 65, 278211 (2022)

    2022

  59. [67]

    P. F. Shan, X. Han, X. Li, Z. Y. Liu, P. T. Yang, B. S. Wang, J. F. Wang, H. Y. Liu, Y. G. Shi, J. P. Sun, and J. G. Cheng, Mater. Today Phys.38, 101267 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    M. Hong, L. Dai, H. Hu, C. Li, and M. Wu, Phys. Rev. B 111, 224107 (2025)

    2025

  61. [69]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. B54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  62. [70]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Comput. Mater. Sci.6, 15 (1996)

    1996

  63. [71]

    V. L. Deringer, A. L. Tchougr´eeff, and R. Dronskowski, J. Phys. Chem. A 115, 5461 (2011), publisher: American Chemical Society

    2011

  64. [72]

    Nelson, C

    R. Nelson, C. Ertural, J. George, V. L. Deringer, G. Hautier, and R. Dronskowski, J. Comput. Chem. 41, 1931 (2020), eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jcc.26353

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    Pizzi, V

    G. Pizzi, V. Vitale, R. Arita, S. Bl¨ ugel, F. Freimuth, G. G´eranton, M. Gibertini, D. Gresch, C. Johnson, T. Koretsune, J. Iba ˜nez-Azpiroz, H. Lee, J.-M. Lihm, D. Marchand, A. Marrazzo, Y. Mokrousov, J. I. Mustafa, Y. Nohara, Y. Nomura, L. Paulatto, S. Ponc´e, T. Ponweiser,...

    2020

  66. [74]

    Georges, G

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

    1996

  67. [75]

    Springer and F

    M. Springer and F. Aryasetiawan, Phys. Rev. B57, 4364 (1998)

    1998

  68. [76]

    Aryasetiawan, M

    F. Aryasetiawan, M. Imada, A. Georges, G. Kotliar, S. Biermann, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Phys. Rev. B 70, 195104 (2004)

    2004

  69. [77]

    H. R. Ramezani, E. S ¸as ¸ıo˘glu, H. Hadipour, H. R. Soleimani, C. Friedrich, S. Bl¨ ugel, and I. Mertig, Phys. Rev. B109, 125108 (2024)

    2024

  70. [78]

    Li and W

    G. Li and W. Hanke, Phys. Rev. B 85, 115103 (2012)

    2012

  71. [79]

    X. Qu, P. Xu, R. Li, G. Li, L. He, and X. Ren, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 18, 5589 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

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