Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Emerging kinetic-exchange for the enhanced metallic ferromagnetism in CrGeTe$_3$ under pressure

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Pressure-driven $d$–$p$ hybridization turns CrGeTe$_3$ from a super-exchange ferromagnetic semiconductor into a kinetic-exchange ferromagnetic metal, explaining the $T_c$ dip and its sharp rise.

desk verdict A plausible but unquantified scenario: the paper identifies a possible d-p hybridized kinetic-exchange channel in compressed CrGeTe3 but never computes its coupling, so the central claim rests on a schematic and a citation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09877 v1 pith:QO5PPJEB submitted 2025-07-14 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Jiaming Liu , Xuefeng Zhang , Hongbin Qu , Xiaoqun Wang , Hai-Qing Lin , Gang Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords CrGeTe3ferromagnetismkineticexchangesuper-exchangepressure-inducedmetallizationd-phybridizationCurietemperaturedynamicalmean-fieldtheory
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 attempts one mechanism for the three pressure-dependent magnetic facts of CrGeTe$_3$: it remains ferromagnetic as a semiconductor at low pressure, turns metallic near a few GPa, and its Curie temperature first dips around 4–5 GPa and then rises steeply into the metallic phase. The proposed driver is a continuous reduction of electronic correlation together with stronger $d$–$p$ hybridization. In the metallic state an emergent $d$–$p$ hybridized band separates from the Cr $t_{2g}$ manifold and mediates a three-step ferromagnetic kinetic exchange, with residual super-exchange and a Stoner-type magnetic instability contributing as well. The authors tie the enhanced $T_c$ to the squared plasma frequency $\omega_p^2$ by showing that intraband excitations dominate its pressure-driven increase, matching optical experiments. If correct, the paper bridges localized and itinerant magnetism in a single material and points to $d$–$p$ hybridization as the tunable ingredient for metallic ferromagnets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the emergent $d$–$p$ hybridized band: one band that detaches from the Cr $t_{2g}$ set near the Fermi level as pressure grows and gains substantial Te-$p$ weight. It carries a three-step ferromagnetic kinetic exchange, in which a Cr electron hops into the Te-$p$ state, a neighboring Cr electron fills the hole, and the Te electron then enters the neighboring Cr, requiring one hopping step fewer than super-exchange and avoiding the Cr-covalency requirement of double-exchange. Supporting machinery includes an analytic super-exchange derivation with two-center tight-binding hoppings and on-site Coulomb parameters as inputs, dynamical mean-field spectral functions that show the gap closing while local moments persist, and ab initio plasma-frequency estimates that reproduce the measured $\omega_p^2$ rise.

What would settle it

Recompute the analytic super-exchange coupling for CrGeTe$_3$ using pressure-dependent parameters taken directly from each pressure's own tight-binding projection and constrained random-phase-approximation screening instead of the assumed linear forms, and compare the resulting $J(P)$ below 4 GPa with the measured $T_c(P)$ minimum.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that metallicity plays a dual role in the pressure evolution of CrGeTe$_3$. Reduced electron correlation together with enhanced Cr-$d$/Te-$p$ hybridization closes the charge gap, and at the same time one band of the $t_{2g}$-derived manifold gains considerable Te-$p$ weight and separates in energy, becoming a new channel for equal-spin hopping between neighboring Cr sites. The paper argues that this channel realizes a three-step ferromagnetic kinetic exchange stabilized by local Hund's coupling, which is the leading mechanism for the enhanced Curie temperature in the metallic phase. In the insulating phase, the same overall picture keeps the familiar super-exchange: the analytic coupling it derives decreases with pressure, which explains the observed $T_c$ minimum. In the metal, the calculated plasma frequency square rises with pressure through intraband excitations, reproducing the measured $\omega_p^2$–$T_c$ correlation and supporting the coexistence of local moments with itinerant carriers.

Load-bearing premise

The low-pressure explanation assumes, rather than derives, the exact pressure dependence of the hopping and Coulomb parameters, using ad hoc linear forms such as $V_{pd\sigma} = 1.0 + 0.03P$ and $U_d = U_{d0} - 0.05P$, so the predicted drop of ferromagnetic coupling below 4 GPa would break if the true pressure dependence differs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The analytically derived ferromagnetic super-exchange decreases with pressure in the semiconducting regime, explaining the observed $T_c$ minimum near 4–5 GPa.
  • Above the semiconductor-metal crossover, the emergent $d$–$p$ hybridized band makes ferromagnetic kinetic exchange the leading mechanism, which is why $T_c$ can rise toward room temperature without a structural transition.
  • The pressure rise of the squared plasma frequency reflects metallization-induced intraband excitations, so $T_c$ and $\omega_p^2$ track each other linearly in the metallic phase.
  • Local moments persist in the metallic phase, as shown by the saturating local spin susceptibility, so residual super-exchange and Hund's-coupling physics coexist with itinerant carriers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, if the kinetic-exchange mechanism transfers to other van der Waals magnets, the same $T_c$ boost should appear under doping or strain that strengthens $d$–$p$ hybridization, without needing actual compression.
  • Beyond the paper, applying the band-separation diagnostic to CrSiTe$_3$ or Fe$_3$GeTe$_2$ would test whether their enhanced metallic ferromagnetism is kinetic-exchange- or Stoner-dominated.
  • Beyond the paper, the low-pressure $T_c$ minimum is currently backed by the assumed linear pressure forms; recomputing the super-exchange with per-pressure projected and constrained-RPA parameters would either confirm it or demand a different explanation.
  • Beyond the paper, spin-resolved high-pressure photoemission could directly image the predicted exchange channel by tracking the Te-$p$ weight and spin polarization of the band that separates from the $t_{2g}$ manifold.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the pressure-driven evolution of CrGeTe3 from a ferromagnetic charge-transfer insulator to a ferromagnetic metal using DFT+DMFT spectral functions, cRPA interaction estimates, and a perturbative super-exchange analysis in the Supplementary Information. It reports gap closure, persisting local moments, the gradual separation of a t2g-derived band that acquires Te-p weight near the Fermi level, and a roughly linear growth of the squared plasma frequency with pressure. On this basis the authors propose that reduced electronic correlation and enhanced d-p hybridization drive the semiconductor-metal crossover, and that an emergent ferromagnetic kinetic-exchange, mediated by the d-p hybridized band, is the leading mechanism for the enhanced Curie temperature in the metallic phase, with residual super-exchange and Stoner instability as secondary contributions.

Significance. If quantitatively established, the proposed unification of super-exchange, kinetic-exchange, and Stoner physics in a single material would be a valuable step toward understanding localized versus itinerant ferromagnetism in van der Waals magnets. The paper has concrete strengths: the DFT+DMFT spectral functions are computed at fixed U and J across pressures; the cRPA table gives a first-principles estimate of correlation reduction; the plasma-frequency calculation directly tracks the measured omega_p^2 trend; and the SI contains an explicit perturbative derivation of super-exchange contributions with a clear enumeration of exchange paths. However, the central claim of the paper is not yet backed by a calculation: no kinetic-exchange coupling J_kin(P) is derived for CrGeTe3. The significance of the work therefore remains conditional on supplying that quantitative link.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, 'Mechanism for metallic ferromagnetism' and Fig. 3(d)] The central claim that ferromagnetic kinetic-exchange is the leading mechanism for the enhanced Tc in metallic CrGeTe3 is not supported by a calculation for this material. The three-step process in Fig. 3(d) is presented as a schematic, and the statement in the Discussion that 'the effective ferromagnetic exchange coupling quickly increases [44]' rests on Ref. [44] rather than on a computed J_kin(P). I ask the authors to provide an explicit evaluation of the kinetic-exchange coupling as a function of pressure, for example by a perturbative treatment analogous to the super-exchange derivation in the SI using per-pressure Wannier-derived parameters, and to compare its magnitude and pressure dependence with the residual super-exchange and with a Stoner estimate. Without such an evaluation, the title's mechanism remains a proposal rather than a demonstrated result.
  2. [SI, 'Calcualtion of super-exchange interactions'] The pressure evolution of the super-exchange couplings is imposed through ad hoc linear forms, V_pd_sigma = 1.0 + 0.03P, V_pd_pi = 0.01 V_pd_sigma, U_d = U_d0 - 0.05P, U_p = U_p0 - 0.005P, J_d = 0.3 U_d, and J_p = 0.1 U_p, rather than obtained from per-pressure Wannier projections or from the cRPA results in Table I. Consequently, the predicted decrease of the net ferromagnetic J with pressure below 4 GPa, used to explain the observed Tc minimum, is largely determined by this ansatz. Please recompute the exchange couplings using parameters extracted at each pressure, or provide a robustness test against alternative pressure dependences.
  3. [SI, 'Super-exchange process t2g-p-eg'] The super-exchange calculation truncates the Hilbert space to states differing from the ground state by one hopping (10 states for the t2g-p-eg path) and restricts exchange paths to at most four hoppings. No convergence check is shown against a larger space or against the full 245-state space mentioned in the text. Since the quantitative J(P) and even its sign depend on the energy denominators and on the completeness of the path enumeration, the truncation error should be quantified before the low-pressure consistency claim is considered established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'hight-pressure' in the Introduction, 'consisetnt' in 'Enhanced ferromagnetism under pressure', 'Calcualtion' in the SI heading, 'supe-rexchange' in the SI discussion of Fig. S5, and 'ferroamgnetism' in the SI final paragraph should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states that panels (b) and (c) monitor orbital contributions 'to (c) the green band and to (d) the four red bands', which does not match the text's reference to panels (b) and (c); this caption should be rephrased.
  3. [Eq. (S3)] In Eq. (S3), the state labeled phi_11 is assigned the energy epsilon_10; the indices should be checked and corrected.
  4. [Introduction] The phrase 'in priori' should be 'a priori'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: computed spectral functions, plasma frequencies, and perturbative super-exchange are not constructed from the claims they support; the central kinetic-exchange lacks a direct J_kin(P) calculation, which is a completeness gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's independent computational content is not equivalent to its inputs. DFT+DMFT spectral functions (Fig. 2) are computed with fixed U_d=4.0 eV and J_d=0.8 eV across pressures, and the semiconductor-metal crossover and persistent local moments are obtained from the calculation, not assumed. The plasma-frequency evolution in Fig. 3(e) is an ab initio intraband Drude evaluation compared against the optical data of Ref. [16]. The low-pressure super-exchange analysis is an explicit second-order perturbative derivation (SI, Calculation of super-exchange interactions) with Slater-Koster parameters; the pressure dependence is imposed through the stated linear forms V_pdσ=1.0+0.03P, U_d=U_d0−0.05P, etc. This is an acknowledged modeling ansatz, not a fit to the measured T_c, and the resulting decreasing J(P) below 4 GPa arises from the competition of three exchange paths rather than being identical to the input by construction. The metallic kinetic-exchange mechanism is adopted from external Ref. [44] and illustrated schematically (Fig. 3(d)); no J_kin(P) is derived for CrGeTe3, so the central high-pressure claim is under-supported, but it is not circular because the authors do not claim to have computed it from the effect it explains. The same-group citation Ref. [28] is used alongside independent Refs. [19,29] for the charge-transfer and super-exchange starting point and is not load-bearing. These gaps are correctness/completeness concerns, not circular reductions.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on several adjustable parameters for the pressure dependence of hoppings and interactions, on standard perturbation theory, and on an externally published kinetic-exchange mechanism whose applicability to CrGeTe3 is assumed rather than demonstrated. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • V_pd_sigma(0) = 1.0 eV
    Initial Cr-d to Te-p sigma hopping, set consistent with Wannier projection but pressure slope added by hand.
  • V_pd_sigma pressure slope = 0.03 eV/GPa
    Assumed linear increase of d-p hybridization with pressure; not derived from per-pressure Wannier data.
  • U_d0 = 4.0 eV (DMFT) / tuned in SI
    On-site Cr-d Coulomb repulsion; used as impurity parameter in DFT+DMFT and as parameter in super-exchange calculation.
  • U_d pressure slope = -0.05 eV/GPa
    Assumed linear reduction of correlation with pressure; cRPA values in Table I exist but are not used in the exchange calculation.
  • J_d ratio = 0.3 U_d
    Hund's coupling on Cr set proportional to U_d.
  • U_p0 = 0.05 eV (used in Fig. 1(d,e))
    On-site Te-p Coulomb repulsion; free parameter.
  • U_p pressure slope = -0.005 eV/GPa
    Assumed pressure reduction of p correlation.
  • J_p ratio = 0.1 U_p
    Hund's coupling on Te set proportional to U_p.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Second-order perturbation theory / Goodenough-Kanamori-Anderson rules with truncation to exchange paths no longer than 4 single-particle hops.
    Used throughout the SI to derive effective spin couplings in the semiconducting phase.
  • domain assumption The effective spin model is an isotropic Heisenberg model without SOC, J = 2(2E_upup - 2E_updown).
    SI, Eq. S8; neglects anisotropic interactions that are known to matter for CrGeTe3's magnetic anisotropy.
  • ad hoc to paper The Hilbert space for each exchange process is truncated to states differing from the ground state by one hopping (10 states for the t2g-p-eg path).
    SI, text before Eq. S3; states differing by more hops are omitted, justified only by 'practical reasons'.
  • domain assumption The ferromagnetic kinetic-exchange mechanism and its scaling with d-p hybridization from Ref. 44 transfer directly to CrGeTe3 with the identified green band as the mediating state.
    Main text, 'Mechanism for metallic ferromagnetism'; used to conclude the exchange coupling quickly increases with pressure without a calculation in this paper.
  • domain assumption Local moments persist in the metallic phase and retain a Hund's coupling strong enough to drive kinetic exchange.
    Supported by DFT+DMFT local spin susceptibility in Fig. S6, but the magnitude of the exchange coupling is not evaluated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emerging kinetic-exchange for the enhanced metallic ferromagnetism in CrGeTe$_3$ under pressure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QO5PPJEB

@misc{pith2026250709877,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emerging kinetic-exchange for the enhanced metallic ferromagnetism in CrGeTe$_3$ under pressure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QO5PPJEB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09877}
}
abstract

The microscopic origin of ferromagnetism in correlated materials remains heavily debated, particularly for the competing mechanisms governing insulating versus metallic phases. In this work, we theoretically study the electronic structure evolution of CrGeTe$_{3}$ under pressure and provide a consistent explanation to three unique features of this system, i.e. the semiconducting ferromagnetism at low pressure, the metallic ferromagnetism at high pressure, and the enhanced Curie temperature in the metallic phase. We propose that it is the reduced electronic correlation and enhanced $d$-$p$ hybridization that universally drive the continuous evolution of CrGeTe$_{3}$ under pressure and glue the three distinct experimental observations. Central to our discovery is the dual role of metallicity -- it simultaneously establishes kinetically driven exchange via $d$-$p$ hybridization and enables Stoner-type magnetic instability, with the contribution also from the residual super-exchange. Our analyses reveal that {\it intraband} excitations dominate the pressure-enhanced $\omega_p^2$ and $T_c$ correlation. These findings establish $d$-$p$ hybridization and electronic correlation as the bridge between localized and itinerant magnetism, at least, in CrGeTe$_{3}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09877 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) The conventional cell of CrGeTe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. displays the spectral function of CrGeTe3 at differ￾ent pressures calculated with DFT + dynamical mean-field the￾ory (DMFT) implemented in eDMFT package [39] using a hy￾bridization expansion continuous-time quantum Monte Carlo method [40–42] as impurity solver. 𝑈𝑑 = 4.0 and 𝐽𝑑 = 0.8 eV were taken as impurity Coulomb parameters in all calcu￾lations. The semiconductor-metal crossover can be seen from the evolution of … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) With the increase of pressure, one band gradually [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Schematic summary of the evolution from super-exchange to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [44]

    Huang, D

    Z. Huang, D. Liu, A. Mansikkam¨aki, V. Vieru, N. Iwahara, and L. F. Chibotaru, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033430 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    M. A. McGuire, H. Dixit, V. R. Cooper, and B. C. Sales, Chemistry of Materials 27, 612 (2015)

    2015

  3. [2]

    Huang, G

    B. Huang, G. Clark, E. Navarro-Moratalla, D. R. Klein, R. Cheng, K. L. Seyler, D. Zhong, E. Schmidgall, M. A. McGuire, D. H. Cobden, W. Yao, D. Xiao, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and X. Xu, Nature 546, 270 (2017)

    2017

  4. [3]

    M.-W. Lin, H. L. Zhuang, J. Yan, T. Z. Ward, A. A. Puretzky, C. M. Rouleau, Z. Gai, L. Liang, V. Meunier, B. G. Sumpter, P. Ganesh, P. R. C. Kent, D. B. Geohegan, D. G. Mandrus, and K. Xiao, Journal of Materials Chemistry C 4, 315 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [4]

    C. Gong, L. Li, Z. Li, H. Ji, A. Stern, Y. Xia, T. Cao, W. Bao, C. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Q. Qiu, R. J. Cava, S. G. Louie, J. Xia, and X. Zhang, Nature 546, 265 (2017)

    2017

  6. [5]

    Deiseroth, K

    H.-J. Deiseroth, K. Aleksandrov, C. Reiner, L. Kienle, and R. K. Kremer, European Journal of Inorganic Chemistry 2006, 1561 (2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [6]

    Y. Deng, Y. Yu, Y. Song, J. Zhang, N. Z. Wang, Z. Sun, Y. Yi, Y. Z. Wu, S. Wu, J. Zhu, J. Wang, X. H. Chen, and Y. Zhang, Nature 563, 94 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [7]

    Carteaux, D

    V. Carteaux, D. Brunet, G. Ouvrard, and G. Andre, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 7, 69 (1995)

    work page 1995

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    H. Ji, R. A. Stokes, L. D. Alegria, E. C. Blomberg, M. A. Tanatar, A. Reijnders, L. M. Schoop, T. Liang, R. Prozorov, K. S. Burch, N. P. Ong, J. R. Petta, and R. J. Cava, Journal of Applied Physics 114, 114907 (2013)

    2013

  2. [9]

    Liu and C

    Y. Liu and C. Petrovic, Phys. Rev. B96, 054406 (2017)

    2017

  3. [10]

    W. Liu, Y. Dai, Y.-E. Yang, J. Fan, L. Pi, L. Zhang, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B98, 214420 (2018)

    2018

  4. [11]

    D. Bhoi, J. Gouchi, N. Hiraoka, Y. Zhang, N. Ogita, T. Hasegawa, K. Kitagawa, H. Takagi, K. H. Kim, and Y. Uwa- toko, Physical Review Letters127, 217203 (2021)

    2021

  5. [12]

    Z. Yu, W. Xia, K. Xu, M. Xu, H. Wang, X. Wang, N. Yu, Z. Zou, J. Zhao, L. Wang, X. Miao, and Y. Guo, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 123, 13885 (2019)

    2019

  6. [13]

    W. Ge, K. Xu, W. Xia, Z. Yu, H. Wang, X. Liu, J. Zhao, X. Wang, N. Yu, Z. Zou, Z. Yan, L. Wang, M. Xu, and Y. Guo, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 819, 153368 (2020)

    2020

  7. [14]

    Spachmann, A

    S. Spachmann, A. Elghandour, S. Selter, B. B¨ uchner, S. Aswartham, and R. Klingeler, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L022040 (2022)

    2022

  8. [15]

    Y. Sun, R. C. Xiao, G. T. Lin, R. R. Zhang, L. S. Ling, Z. W. Ma, X. Luo, W. J. Lu, Y. P. Sun, and Z. G. Sheng, Applied Physics Letters 112, 072409 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    Ebad-Allah, D

    J. Ebad-Allah, D. Guterding, M. Varma, M. Diware, S. Ganorkar, H. O. Jeschke, and C. A. Kuntscher, Phys. Rev. B 111, L140402 (2025)

    2025

  10. [17]

    P. W. Anderson and H. Hasegawa, Phys. Rev.100, 675 (1955)

    1955

  11. [18]

    V. M. Pereira, J. M. B. Lopes dos Santos, E. V. Castro, and A. H. C. Neto, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 147202 (2004)

    2004

  12. [19]

    M. D. Watson, I. Markovi´c, F. Mazzola, A. Rajan, E. A. Morales, D. M. Burn, T. Hesjedal, G. van der Laan, S. Mukherjee, T. K. Kim, C. Bigi, I. Vobornik, M. Ciomaga Hatnean, G. Balakrish- nan, and P. D. C. King, Phys. Rev. B 101, 205125 (2020)

    2020

  13. [20]

    Achinuq, R

    B. Achinuq, R. Fujita, W. Xia, Y. Guo, P. Bencok, G. van der Laan, and T. Hesjedal, physica status solidi (RRL) – Rapid Research Letters 16, 2100566 (2022), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/pssr.202100566

    2022 doi

  14. [21]

    N. Wang, H. Tang, M. Shi, H. Zhang, W. Zhuo, D. Liu, F. Meng, L. Ma, J. Ying, L. Zou, Z. Sun, and X. Chen, Journal of the American Chemical Society 141, 17166 (2019)

    2019

  15. [22]

    I. A. Verzhbitskiy, H. Kurebayashi, H. Cheng, J. Zhou, S. Khan, Y. P. Feng, and G. Eda, Nature Electronics 3, 460 (2020)

    2020

  16. [23]

    Trzaska, L

    L. Trzaska, L. Qiao, M. D. Watson, M. Ciomaga Hatnean, I. Markovi´c, E. Abarca Morales, T. Antonelli, C. Cacho, G. Bal- akrishnan, W. Ren, S. Picozzi, and P. D. C. King, npj 2D Materials and Applications 9, 4 (2025)

    2025

  17. [24]

    Idzuchi, A

    H. Idzuchi, A. E. Llacsahuanga Allcca, A. K. A. Lu, M. Saito, S. Das, J. F. Ribeiro, M. Houssa, R. Meng, K. Inoue, X.-C. Pan, K. Tanigaki, Y. Ikuhara, T. Nakanishi, and Y. P. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 111, L020402 (2025)

    2025

  18. [25]

    D. Bhoi, J. Gouchi, N. Hiraoka, Y. Zhang, N. Ogita, T. Hasegawa, K. Kitagawa, H. Takagi, K. H. Kim, and Y. Uwa- toko, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 217203 (2021)

    2021

  19. [26]

    Suzuki, B

    M. Suzuki, B. Gao, K. Koshiishi, S. Nakata, K. Hagiwara, 6 C. Lin, Y. X. Wan, H. Kumigashira, K. Ono, S. Kang, S. Kang, J. Yu, M. Kobayashi, S.-W. Cheong, and A. Fujimori, Phys. Rev. B 99, 161401 (2019)

    2019

  20. [27]

    D.-H. Kim, K. Kim, K.-T. Ko, J. Seo, J. S. Kim, T.-H. Jang, Y. Kim, J.-Y. Kim, S.-W. Cheong, and J.-H. Park, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 207201 (2019)

    2019

  21. [28]

    Zhang, X

    J. Zhang, X. Cai, W. Xia, A. Liang, J. Huang, C. Wang, L. Yang, H. Yuan, Y. Chen, S. Zhang, Y. Guo, Z. Liu, and G. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 047203 (2019)

    2019

  22. [29]

    Y. F. Li, W. Wang, W. Guo, C. Y. Gu, H. Y. Sun, L. He, J. Zhou, Z. B. Gu, Y. F. Nie, and X. Q. Pan, Phys. Rev. B 98, 125127 (2018)

    2018

  23. [30]

    Sivadas, M

    N. Sivadas, M. W. Daniels, R. H. Swendsen, S. Okamoto, and D. Xiao, Phys. Rev. B91, 235425 (2015)

    2015

  24. [31]

    S. Kang, S. Kang, and J. Yu, Journal of Electronic Materials 48, 1441 (2019)

    2019

  25. [32]

    Y. Fang, S. Wu, Z.-Z. Zhu, and G.-Y. Guo, Phys. Rev. B 98, 125416 (2018)

    2018

  26. [33]

    A. O. Fumega, S. Blanco-Canosa, H. Babu-Vasili, P. Gargiani, H. Li, J.-S. Zhou, F. Rivadulla, and V. Pardo, J. Mater. Chem. C 8, 13582 (2020)

    2020

  27. [34]

    Kanamori, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 10, 87 (1959)

    J. Kanamori, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 10, 87 (1959)

    1959

  28. [35]

    Weihe and H

    H. Weihe and H. U. G¨ udel, Inorganic Chemistry36, 3632 (1997)

    1997

  29. [36]

    J. C. Slater and G. F. Koster, Phys. Rev. 94, 1498 (1954)

    1954

  30. [37]

    X. Pan, B. Xin, H. Zeng, P. Cheng, T. Ye, D. Yao, E. Xue, J. Ding, and W.-H. Wang, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 14, 3320 (2023)

    2023

  31. [38]

    W. Cai, H. Sun, W. Xia, C. Wu, Y. Liu, H. Liu, Y. Gong, D.-X. Yao, Y. Guo, and M. Wang, Phys. Rev. B102, 144525 (2020)

    2020

  32. [39]

    Haule, C.-H

    K. Haule, C.-H. Yee, and K. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 81, 195107 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    Haule, Phys

    K. Haule, Phys. Rev. B 75, 155113 (2007)

    2007

  34. [42]

    E. Gull, P. Werner, O. Parcollet, and M. Troyer, EPL (Euro- physics Letters) 82, 57003 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    H.-X. Xu, M. Shimizu, D. Guterding, J. Otsuki, and H. O. Jeschke, Phys. Rev. B108, 125142 (2023)

    2023

  36. [45]

    M. C. Qian, C. Y. Fong, and L. H. Yang, Phys. Rev. B 70, 052404 (2004)

    2004

  37. [46]

    Z. Dong, Z. Wang, T. Zhang, J. Xiang, S. Zhang, L. Liu, and P. Sun, Chinese Physics B31, 117502 (2022)

    2022

  38. [47]

    Zhang, K

    S. Zhang, K. Harii, T. Yokouchi, S. Okayasu, and Y. Shiomi, Advanced Electronic Materials 10, 2300609 (2024)

    2024

  39. [48]

    Kresse and J

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

    1996

  40. [49]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Computational Materials Science 6, 15 (1996)

    1996

  41. [50]

    Eschrig and K

    H. Eschrig and K. Koepernik, Phys. Rev. B 80, 104503 (2009)

    2009

  42. [51]

    Koepernik, O

    K. Koepernik, O. Janson, Y. Sun, and J. van den Brink, Physical Review B 107, 235135 (2023)

    2023

  43. [52]

    Blaha, K

    P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, F. Tran, R. Laskowski, G. K. H. Madsen, and L. D. Marks, J. Chem. Phys. 152, 074101 (2020)

    2020

  44. [53]

    Werner and A

    P. Werner and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. B 74, 155107 (2006)

    2006

  45. [54]

    Werner, A

    P. Werner, A. Comanac, L. de’ Medici, M. Troyer, and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 076405 (2006)

    2006

  46. [55]

    E. Gull, A. J. Millis, A. I. Lichtenstein, A. N. Rubtsov, M. Troyer, and P. Werner, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 349 (2011)

    2011

  47. [56]

    D. I. Khomskii, Transition Metal Compounds (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, 2014)

    2014

  48. [57]

    Tarjan, SIAM Journal on Computing 1, 146 (1972), https://doi.org/10.1137/0201010

    R. Tarjan, SIAM Journal on Computing 1, 146 (1972), https://doi.org/10.1137/0201010. 1 Supplementary Information Emerging kinetic-exchange for the enhanced metallic ferromagnetism in CrGeTe 3 under pressure Jiaming Liu1, Xuefeng Zhang1, Hongbin Qu1, Xiaoqun Wang2, Hai-Qing Lin...

    1972 doi

Pith tools

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