Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 45 references

CrSb's specific heat exceeds the Dulong–Petit limit at room temperature, which the authors attribute to gapped magnons of its altermagnetic order.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 19:14 UTC pith:KTIAFD3H

load-bearing objection Good growth, bad phonon baseline: heat capacity claim needs work. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.02835 v2 pith:KTIAFD3H submitted 2026-03-03 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.other

Thermodynamic and transport properties of high-quality single crystals of the altermagnet CrSb

Shubhankar Paul , Atsutoshi Ikeda , Giordano Mattoni , Shingo Yonezawa , Chanchal Sow This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.other
keywords altermagnetismCrSbspecific heatmagnon gapDulong-Petit limitsingle crystal growthself-fluxmagnetoresistance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper reports the growth of large, high-quality single crystals of CrSb, an altermagnet with a Néel temperature near 700 K, and their transport and thermodynamic characterization. The central claim is that the room-temperature specific heat of CrSb rises above the Dulong–Petit lattice limit, an excess the authors assign to a broad magnon contribution from the altermagnetic order. Fitting the specific heat with a Debye lattice term plus a gapped magnon term yields a magnon gap of about 16 meV, consistent with inelastic neutron scattering. If correct, CrSb hosts gapped altermagnon modes that persist at room temperature, making it a candidate for room-temperature magnonic and spintronic devices. The paper also reports a residual resistivity ratio of 11, a large positive magnetoresistance of 80% at 3.5 K, and the absence of superconductivity down to 0.1 K.

Core claim

The authors grew (001)-oriented CrSb single crystals by a self-flux method and measured resistivity, magnetization, and specific heat. The key finding is that the specific heat at 300 K exceeds the Dulong–Petit value of 6R, which cannot be accounted for by electronic and Debye lattice terms alone. They model the excess as a gapped magnon contribution C_mag(T) = a_1 T^{1/2} exp(−Δ/T) and extract a magnon gap Δ ≈ 16 ± 1 meV, with Debye temperature θ_D ≈ 321 ± 5 K from the same fit. This is presented as thermodynamic evidence for gapped, spin-split altermagnon excitations in the collinear antiferromagnetic state, stable far above room temperature.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on the altermagnetic spin-group symmetry of CrSb (space group P6_3/mmc, with opposite-spin Cr sublattices related by screw and mirror symmetries), which lifts magnon spin degeneracy and opens a gap in the spin-wave spectrum. On the data side, the working engine is the specific-heat decomposition C(T) = γT + C_Debye(T) + C_mag(T), where the lattice term is a single-Debye-temperature integral and the magnetic term is a gapped magnon expression proportional to T^{1/2} exp(−Δ/T). That functional form is what extracts the 16 meV gap from the high-temperature excess.

Load-bearing premise

The entire specific-heat excess above the Debye lattice term is attributed to magnons, with no independent estimate of anharmonic lattice, thermal-expansion, or Cp−Cv corrections.

What would settle it

Measure the specific heat of a nonmagnetic NiAs-structure analogue with similar Debye temperature (or compute the anharmonic phonon contribution ab initio): if the excess above Dulong-Petit persists without magnetism, the magnon gap assignment fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the 16 meV magnon gap is real, CrSb retains gapped spin excitations at room temperature, supporting proposals for room-temperature magnon transport and spin-to-charge conversion.
  • Specific heat becomes a bulk thermodynamic probe of altermagnon gaps, complementing neutron scattering in materials where large crystals are available.
  • The absence of superconductivity down to 0.1 K rules out a spurious low-temperature pairing in stoichiometric CrSb, separating it from non-stoichiometric CrSb_{1+δ}.
  • The 5 T field-independence of the specific heat is consistent with the Zeeman energy being much smaller than the gap, confirming that high fields would be needed to test magnon physics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The single-Debye phonon background is the soft spot: anharmonicity, thermal expansion, and Cp−Cv corrections could plausibly account for a 1–2 J mol⁻¹ K⁻¹ excess at 300 K. A measurement on a nonmagnetic isostructural analogue, or an ab initio phonon calculation with anharmonic terms, would test whether the magnon attribution survives.
  • The T^{1/2} exp(−Δ/T) form is a strong simplification; realistic altermagnon densities of states with two split branches might yield a different temperature dependence, so the extracted Δ should be viewed as an effective gap.
  • If gapped altermagnons exist at room temperature, CrSb should show a magnetic contribution to thermal conductivity that is suppressed by a magnetic field of order Δ/gμ_B (~16 meV ⇒ hundreds of tesla), which is impractical, but pressure or doping could tune the gap and make field effects accessible.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the growth of high-quality CrSb single crystals by a self-flux method and characterizes them via XRD, EDS, Laue diffraction, electrical resistivity, magnetoresistance, magnetization, AC susceptibility, and specific heat. Key results include an RRR of ~11, a positive magnetoresistance of ~80% at 3.5 K and 6 T, the absence of superconductivity down to 0.1 K, and a low-temperature Sommerfeld coefficient γ = 4.0 mJ mol⁻¹ K⁻². The central claim is that the room-temperature specific heat exceeds the Dulong–Petit limit and that this excess is magnetic in origin, yielding a gapped-magnon contribution with Δ ≈ 16 meV, as described by Eq. (6).

Significance. The growth method and transport/magnetization characterizations are valuable contributions to the altermagnet CrSb literature. The RRR improvement and the lack of superconductivity in stoichiometric CrSb are useful negative and positive results. The proposed thermodynamic evidence for gapped altermagnons near room temperature, if substantiated, would be significant. However, the specific-heat analysis currently rests on a single-Debye-temperature phonon baseline and neglects Cp−Cv and anharmonic contributions, so the magnon-gap extraction is not yet firmly established. The paper transparently compares the fitted gap with INS and LSWT values, which is commendable, but the heat-capacity data alone do not prove the magnetic origin of the excess.

major comments (3)
  1. [Specific heat capacity, Eq. (4)–(6)] The measured quantity is Cp, but Eq. (4) uses Cv(Debye) as the lattice baseline. At 300 K, Cp−Cv = 9α²BTV_m is positive and can be substantial; with typical CrSb parameters (α ~ 1–3×10⁻⁵ K⁻¹, B ~ 100 GPa), it is ~0.7–7 J mol⁻¹ K⁻¹, comparable to the fitted magnon term (~3 J mol⁻¹ K⁻¹). Without thermal expansion, elastic constants, or a nonmagnetic reference, the excess over 6R is not uniquely attributable to magnons, and Δ ≈ 16 meV is not established.
  2. [Eq. (6)] The functional form Cmag = a1 T^{1/2} exp(−Δ/T) presupposes gapped magnons; Δ is a free fit parameter. The consistency with INS and LSWT values is encouraging, but the heat-capacity analysis cannot independently establish the gap unless the phonon baseline is firmly known. The statement that the observed specific heat 'cannot be explained by only lattice and electronic heat capacity contributions' is an assertion; no quantitative bound on the lattice contribution or on Cp−Cv is provided.
  3. [Fig. 5(b), fit range] The fit over 25–300 K uses a single Debye temperature with free parameters γ, β, β5, θD, a1, and Δ. A one-parameter Debye model is generally inadequate for the full phonon spectrum of a two-atom cell; the low-temperature θD ~ 318 K does not constrain the 300 K baseline. A nonmagnetic isostructural reference, thermal expansion data, or an ab initio phonon calculation would be needed to separate the magnetic excess from lattice anharmonicity and Cp−Cv effects.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption mislabels subpanels: the temperature-dependent susceptibility is labeled (d) twice, and the magnetization-field data are also labeled (d). The subpanel letters in the figure should be corrected.
  2. [Introduction, Table I] In Table I, the weak-SOC AM column lists 'gappless' (typo) and gives a gap Δ = 0 while the Cmag expression includes exp(−Δ/T); clarify whether the weak-SOC limit is truly gapless or has a small gap.
  3. [General typos] There are several typographical errors, e.g., 'Schamatic' in Fig. 1 caption, 'Sommerfield' for Sommerfeld, and inconsistent spelling of 'Néel' and 'centrifugation'. A careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the magnon gap is reported as a fit parameter and checked against external neutron/LSWT results; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's specific-heat analysis fits the measured Cp to C(T)=γT+C_V^Debye(T)+Cmag(T) with Cmag=a1 T^{1/2} exp(−Δ/T). The gap Δ is explicitly a fitted parameter ('the best fit yields ... Δ=190±10 K'), not a first-principles prediction, and the paper transparently compares it with inelastic-neutron-scattering and LSWT estimates from external works. No result is forced by normalization or by a self-citation chain. Reference [40] (which overlaps with the authors) is cited only for the standard Debye formula β=12π^4 n k_B N_A/(5 θ_D^3); this formula is textbook and does not import the paper's conclusion. The main scientific weakness—that Cp−Cv, anharmonicity, and thermal expansion are not modeled, so the sub-300-K excess might not be uniquely magnetic—is a correctness/underdetermination concern, not a circularity: the authors do not disguise the fitted nature of the parameters. Hence score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the lattice heat capacity is accurately captured by a single-Debye-temperature model, with all remaining excess assigned to magnons. This is a strong decomposition assumption in a layered, anisotropic material at 300 K. The fitted gap and amplitude are free parameters; their consistency with external neutron data is the main independent support.

free parameters (5)
  • Δ (magnon gap) = 190 ± 10 K (~16 ± 1 meV)
    Fitted from high-temperature C(T) with C_mag = a T^{1/2} exp(-Δ/T), Eq. (6); this is the headline gap value.
  • a1 (magnon amplitude) = 0.31–0.40 J mol⁻¹ K⁻³ᐒ
    Prefactor of the gapped-magnon term in the same high-temperature fit (Table III).
  • θD (Debye temperature) = 321 ± 5 K (high-T fit); 318 K (low-T fit)
    Determines the phonon background; the size of the 'magnon excess' depends directly on this parameter.
  • γ (Sommerfeld coefficient) = 4.0 ± 0.08 mJ mol⁻¹ K⁻²
    Fitted from C/T vs T² (0.45–20 K) and used in the high-temperature decomposition.
  • β5 (fifth-order phonon term) = ≈2.5×10⁻⁴ mJ mol⁻¹ K⁻⁶
    Higher-order phonon coefficient in the low-temperature fit, Eq. (2).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The lattice contribution is described by the Debye model with a single θD and n=2 atoms per formula unit.
    Used in Eq. (5); the real phonon DOS of CrSb is anisotropic, and the fit quality over 25–300 K is not shown.
  • domain assumption The magnetic contribution has the gapped 3D magnon form C_mag = a1 T^{1/2} exp(-Δ/T).
    Eq. (6); assumes gapped magnons and determines Δ a priori; no independent derivation from first principles in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The excess over Dulong–Petit is entirely magnetic; anharmonic and Cp−Cv contributions are neglected.
    The paper does not estimate thermal expansion or anharmonic terms; this is the key unvalidated premise of the headline claim.
  • domain assumption AC susceptibility down to 0.1 K is sufficient to conclude the absence of superconductivity in stoichiometric CrSb.
    Standard practice, but zero-resistance confirmation is not shown; the paper's claim is limited to the measured susceptibility response.
  • domain assumption The LSWT expression Δ_LSWT ≈ 2S√(D J_eff) with parameters from ref [20] applies to CrSb.
    Used for external consistency; relies on exchange and anisotropy parameters from another group's neutron and theory work.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11996 in / 14193 out tokens · 130755 ms · 2026-08-02T19:14:21.898955+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermodynamic and transport properties of high-quality single crystals of the altermagnet CrSb." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KTIAFD3H

@misc{pith2026260302835,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermodynamic and transport properties of high-quality single crystals of the altermagnet CrSb},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KTIAFD3H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.02835}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Altermagnetism (AM) is an emerging magnetic order unifying essential characteristics of ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic states. The CrSb has attracted significant interest owing to its large altermagnetic spin-splitting energy. In this paper, we present the growth details of high-quality single crystals of CrSb using the self-flux method and investigate their physical properties. We obtained large (001) oriented hexagonal crystals, up to 2~$\times$~2.5~$\times$~1~mm$^3$ in size with residual resistivity ratio $\sim$ 11. A pronounced positive magnetoresistance of up to 80\% is observed at 3.5 K. Most strikingly, the room temperature specific heat value exceeds the Dulong-Petit limit, being attributed to a broad magnon contribution from the altermagnetic order of CrSb. The specific heat fit reveals a magnon energy gap $\sim$ 16 $\pm$ 1 meV. Further, ac susceptibility measurements demonstrate the absence of superconductivity down to 0.1 K. These findings underscore CrSb as a viable altermagnet for room temperature magnonic and spintronic applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.02835 by Atsutoshi Ikeda, Chanchal Sow, Giordano Mattoni, Shingo Yonezawa, Shubhankar Paul.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Schamatic diagram of crystal and magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic description of the CrSb single crystal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Laue diffraction pattern of a CrSb crystal, showing a diffraction pattern characteristic of the (001) plane. Inset: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Temperature dependence of the zero-field longitudinal resistivity. (b) MR at various temperatures ranging in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) C/T plotted against T 2 from 0.45 to 20 K. Data is fitted with Eq. (2). We also show the result of fitting with C = γT + βT 3 below 8 K (blue broken curve). (b) Temperature-dependent specific heat of a CrSb crystal measured between 1.8 K and 300 K under zero magnetic field. The black dashed line corresponds to the Dulong Petit limit. The red solid line represents the fit obtained over the temperature r… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X 12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X 12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    Mazin and PRX editor, Phys

    I. Mazin and PRX editor, Phys. Rev. X 12, 040002 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    Jiang, Z

    Y. Jiang, Z. Song, T. Zhu, Z. Fang, H. Weng, Z.-X. Liu, J. Yang, and C. Fang, Phys. Rev. X 14, 031039 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    S. Paul, G. Mattoni, H. Matsuki, T. Johnson, C. Sow, S. Yonezawa, and Y. Maeno, J. Cryst. Growth 673, 128405 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    Z. Wu, M. Long, H. Chen, S. Paul, H. Matsuki, O. Zhe- liuk, U. Zeitler, G. Li, R. Zhou, Z. Zhu, et al., Phys. Rev. X 15, 031044 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    Osumi, K

    T. Osumi, K. Yamauchi, S. Souma, P. Shubhankar, A. Honma, K. Nakayama, K. Ozawa, M. Kitamura, K. Horiba, H. Kumigashira, et al., Phys. Rev. B 113, 085116 (2026)

    2026

  8. [8]

    Karube, T

    S. Karube, T. Tanaka, D. Sugawara, N. Kadoguchi, M. Kohda, and J. Nitta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 137201 (2022)

    2022

  9. [9]

    Kiefer, F

    L. Kiefer, F. Wirth, A. Bertin, P. Becker, L. Bohat´ y, K. Schmalzl, A. Stunault, J. A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Velamazan, O. Fabelo, and M. Braden, J. Phys. Condens. Matter. 37, 135801 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    Fedchenko, J

    O. Fedchenko, J. Min´ ar, A. Akashdeep, S. W. D’souza, D. Vasilyev, O. Tkach, L. Odenbreit, Q. Nguyen, D. Kut- nyakhov, N. Wind, et al., Sci. Adv. 10, eadj4883 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    Hirone, S

    T. Hirone, S. Maeda, I. Tsubokawa, and N. Tsuya, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 11, 1083 (1956)

    1956

  12. [12]

    S. Abe, T. Kaneko, M. Ohashi, H. Yoshida, and K. Kami- gaki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 53, 2703 (1984). 9

    1984

  13. [13]

    Reimers, L

    S. Reimers, L. Odenbreit, L. ˇSmejkal, V. N. Strocov, P. Constantinou, A. B. Hellenes, R. Jaeschke Ubiergo, W. H. Campos, V. K. Bharadwaj, A. Chakraborty, et al., Nat. Commun. 15, 2116 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Urata, W

    T. Urata, W. Hattori, and H. Ikuta, Phys. Rev. Mater. 8, 084412 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Y. Bai, X. Xiang, S. Pan, S. Zhang, H. Chen, X. Chen, Z. Han, G. Xu, and F. Xu, Appl. Phys. Lett. 126, 042402 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    B. Rai, K. Patra, S. Bera, S. Kalimuddin, K. Deb, M. Mondal, P. Mahadevan, and N. Kumar, Adv. Sci. 12, 2502226 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    X. Peng, Y. Wang, S. Zhang, Y. Zhou, Y. Sun, Y. Su, C. Wu, T. Zhou, L. Liu, H. Wang, et al., Phys. Rev. B 111, 144402 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    Snow, Phys

    A. Snow, Phys. Rev. 85, 365 (1952)

    1952

  19. [19]

    Takei, D

    W. Takei, D. E. Cox, and G. Shirane, Phys. Rev. 129, 2008 (1963)

    2008

  20. [20]

    A. K. Singh, N. Heinsdorf, A. A. Mancilla, J. Bannies, A. Maity, A. I. Kolesnikov, M. Mat- suda, M. B. Stone, M. Franz, J. Gaudet, et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.16086 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.16086 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.16086 2025

  21. [21]

    Zhang, X.-S

    Y.-F. Zhang, X.-S. Ni, K. Chen, and K. Cao, Phys. Rev. B 111, 174451 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    Tas, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.03759 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.03759 (2025)

    M. Tas, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.03759 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.03759 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    G. Yang, Z. Li, S. Yang, J. Li, H. Zheng, W. Zhu, Z. Pan, Y. Xu, S. Cao, W. Zhao, et al., Nat. Commun. 16, 1442 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    H. Bai, L. Han, X. Feng, Y. Zhou, R. Su, Q. Wang, L. Liao, W. Zhu, X. Chen, F. Pan, X. Fan, and C. Song, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 197202 (2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    Jungwirth, X

    T. Jungwirth, X. Marti, P. Wadley, and J. Wunderlich, Nat. Nanotechnol. 11, 231 (2016)

    2016

  26. [26]

    Fukami, V

    S. Fukami, V. O. Lorenz, and O. Gomonay, J. Appl. Phys. 128, 070401 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    Corticelli, R

    A. Corticelli, R. Moessner, and P. A. McClarty, Phys. Rev. B 105, 064430 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    Joshua, Physica A Stat

    S. Joshua, Physica A Stat. Mech. Appl. 261, 135 (1998)

    1998

  29. [29]

    ˇSmejkal, A

    L. ˇSmejkal, A. Marmodoro, K.-H. Ahn, R. Gonz´ alez- Hern´ andez, I. Turek, S. Mankovsky, H. Ebert, S. W. D’Souza, O. ˇSipr, J. Sinova, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 256703 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    Varshney and N

    D. Varshney and N. Kaurav, Eur. Phys. J. B. 37, 301 (2004)

    2004

  31. [31]

    Z. Liu, M. Ozeki, S. Asai, S. Itoh, and T. Masuda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 156702 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Rodr ´ ıguez-Carvajal, Physica B.192, 55 (1993)

    J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Carvajal, Physica B.192, 55 (1993)

    1993

  33. [33]

    Dahal, J

    A. Dahal, J. Gunasekera, and D. K. Singh, Phys. Status Solidi RRL. 11, 1700211 (2017)

    2017

  34. [34]

    S. Paul, G. Mattoni, A. Ghosh, P. Kesarwani, D. Sahu, M. Ahlawat, A. Verma, V. Govind Rao, C. Sow, et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 128, 2502226 (2026)

    2026

  35. [35]

    W. Li, C. Xu, M. Wang, M. Zou, W. Li, H. Wang, W. Jiang, and B. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 112, L100401 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    Voln` y, D

    J. Voln` y, D. Wagenknecht, J. ˇZelezn` y, P. Harcuba, E. Duverger-Nedellec, R. Colman, J. Kudrnovsk` y, I. Turek, K. Uhl ´ ıˇ rov´ a, and K. V` yborn` y, Phys. Rev. Mater. 4, 064403 (2020)

    2020

  37. [37]

    S. Y. Bodnar, Y. Skourski, O. Gomonay, J. Sinova, M. Kl¨ aui, and M. Jourdan, Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 014004 (2020)

    2020

  38. [38]

    J. Yuan, Y. Song, X. Xing, and J. Chen, Dalton Trans- actions 49, 17605 (2020)

    2020

  39. [39]

    Yonezawa, T

    S. Yonezawa, T. Higuchi, Y. Sugimoto, C. Sow, and Y. Maeno, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 86, 093903 (2015)

    2015

  40. [40]

    S. Paul, A. Ikeda, H. Matsuki, G. Mattoni, J. Schmalian, C. Sow, S. Yonezawa, and Y. Maeno, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.03108 https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.03108 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Kahal, A

    L. Kahal, A. Zaoui, and M. Ferhat, J. Appl. Phys. 101, 093912 (2007)

    2007

  42. [42]

    Laroussi, M

    A. Laroussi, M. Berber, B. Doumi, A. Mokaddem, H. Abid, A. Boudali, H. Bahloul, and H. Moujri, Appl. Phys. A 125, 676 (2019)

    2019

  43. [43]

    Radhakrishna and J

    P. Radhakrishna and J. Cable, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11940 (1996)

    1996

  44. [44]

    J. Chen, Z. Jin, R. Yuan, H. Wang, H. Jia, W. Wei, L. Sheng, J. Wang, Y. Zhang, S. Liu, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 056701 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    L. Chen, X. Teng, H. Tan, B. L. Winn, G. E. Granroth, F. Ye, D. Yu, R. Mole, B. Gao, B. Yan, et al., Nat. Commun. 15, 1918 (2024)

    1918