pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.10956 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-13 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

A first-principles study of bcc chromium beyond the generalized gradient approximation (GGA)

Alma Partos , Igor Di Marco , Shivalika Sharma This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords density functional theorymeta-GGAspin-density wavebcc chromiummagnetic frustrationantiferromagnetismitinerant magnetism
0
0 comments X

The pith

Meta-GGA functionals overestimate local magnetic moments in bcc chromium and stabilize the antiferromagnetic state over the spin-density wave.

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

The paper tests whether meta-GGA exchange-correlation functionals can improve on GGA for the magnetism of body-centered cubic chromium, whose ground state is an incommensurate spin-density wave. Calculations across a range of wave vectors show that every meta-GGA increases the size of the local moments, strengthens frustration at the nodes, and thereby lowers the energy of the commensurate antiferromagnetic order relative to the observed SDW. A sympathetic reader cares because chromium has long served as a benchmark for whether first-principles methods can capture itinerant antiferromagnetism without ad-hoc corrections, and the result indicates that current meta-GGAs move the description in the wrong direction.

Core claim

All meta-GGA functionals overestimate the local magnetic moments and enhance the nodal magnetic frustration, destabilizing the SDW state relative to the commensurate antiferromagnetic configuration. Tao-Perdew-Staroverov-Scuseria yields results closest to those of GGA and thus provides the most adequate description of bcc Cr among the meta-GGA functionals tested.

What carries the argument

Total-energy evaluation as a function of SDW wave vector q using GGA and several meta-GGA functionals in periodic DFT calculations.

If this is right

  • TPSS gives the description closest to GGA among the meta-GGAs.
  • All tested meta-GGAs increase local moments and nodal frustration relative to GGA.
  • Non-local or hybrid functionals are needed for complex magnetic systems like bcc Cr.
  • The SDW state is destabilized relative to AF when meta-GGAs are used.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The findings imply that functionals incorporating exact exchange or longer-range correlations may be required to recover the delicate SDW preference.
  • Similar overestimation of moments could affect first-principles predictions for other itinerant SDW systems such as certain manganese alloys.
  • Direct comparison with dynamical mean-field theory or quantum Monte Carlo results on the same structures would test whether the meta-GGA trend persists beyond static DFT.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen meta-GGA functionals together with the k-point sampling, energy cutoffs, and SDW wave-vector grid are sufficient to rank the energies of incommensurate SDW versus AF states without further corrections.

What would settle it

A hybrid-functional or beyond-DFT calculation that finds the incommensurate SDW lower in energy than the AF state at the experimentally observed wave vector would falsify the reported destabilization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.10956 by Alma Partos, Igor Di Marco, Shivalika Sharma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: (a) c-AF configuration of the bulk-bcc Cr. (b) The transverse SDW state, with magnetic moments (here of an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Total energy as a function of the lattice constant for NM (open symbols) and c-AF (filled symbols) bulk-bcc Cr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Local magnetic moment as a function of the lattice constant ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) Energy difference ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Local magnetic moments for SDWs with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: TDOS for the AF, NM, and SDW (at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Spin-polarized PDOS for the Cr-3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The study of magnetism in transition metals is a cornerstone in understanding complex electronic and magnetic interactions in condensed matter systems. Among transition metal elements, body-centered cubic (bcc) chromium stands out because of its spin-density wave (SDW) ground state, posing a long-standing challenge for density functional theory (DFT). Conventional functionals, such as the generalized-gradient approximation (GGA) and the local-density approximation (LDA), fail to predict this experimentally observed incommensurate SDW as the ground state. In this study, we present a comprehensive DFT analysis of bcc Cr employing GGA and a variety of meta-GGA functionals. We evaluated total energies, structural parameters, and magnetic properties across a wide range of SDW wave vectors. Our results show that all meta-GGA functionals overestimate the local magnetic moments and enhance the nodal magnetic frustration, destabilizing the SDW state relative to the commensurate antiferromagnetic (AF) configuration. Tao-Perdew-Staroverov-Scuseria (TPSS) yields results closest to those of the GGA, thus providing the most adequate description of bcc Cr among the meta-GGA functionals. These results emphasize the need for the further development of non-local or hybrid functionals tailored for complex magnetic systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a comprehensive DFT study of bcc chromium using the GGA and several meta-GGA functionals. By calculating total energies, structural parameters, and magnetic properties for a wide range of SDW wave vectors, the authors conclude that meta-GGA functionals overestimate local magnetic moments, enhance nodal magnetic frustration, and thereby destabilize the incommensurate SDW ground state in favor of the commensurate antiferromagnetic configuration. TPSS is identified as the meta-GGA closest to GGA results.

Significance. If substantiated with proper numerical validation, these findings would be significant for computational materials science by highlighting limitations of meta-GGA functionals in describing the delicate energetics of itinerant magnetism in Cr. This could motivate development of non-local or hybrid functionals for complex magnetic systems. The direct total-energy comparisons across a wave-vector grid represent a standard and useful approach.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that all meta-GGA functionals destabilize the SDW state relative to the AF configuration is based on total-energy rankings, but the abstract provides no evidence of convergence tests with respect to k-point sampling density, plane-wave cutoff, or smearing parameters. These energy differences are typically <1 meV/atom and known to converge slowly, raising the possibility that the reported ordering is an artifact of the chosen grid rather than a functional effect.
  2. [Methods] Methods/Computational Details: The inclusion of the kinetic-energy density in meta-GGAs can amplify numerical sensitivities near magnetic nodes; without demonstrated tightening of the Brillouin-zone sampling until the SDW-AF energy difference stabilizes (or reverses) for each functional, the ranking of incommensurate versus commensurate states cannot be considered reliable.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: It would improve clarity to explicitly list all meta-GGA functionals tested (beyond noting TPSS) and to state the range of SDW wave vectors examined.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for highlighting the importance of demonstrating numerical convergence for the delicate energy differences in bcc Cr. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional details and clarifications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that all meta-GGA functionals destabilize the SDW state relative to the AF configuration is based on total-energy rankings, but the abstract provides no evidence of convergence tests with respect to k-point sampling density, plane-wave cutoff, or smearing parameters. These energy differences are typically <1 meV/atom and known to converge slowly, raising the possibility that the reported ordering is an artifact of the chosen grid rather than a functional effect.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract is concise and omits explicit mention of convergence tests, which could raise questions for readers. In the Methods section of the manuscript we specify the computational settings (12x12x12 k-mesh, 500 eV cutoff, Methfessel-Paxton smearing of 0.2 eV) and note that these were chosen after preliminary tests. Separate convergence checks with denser meshes (up to 16x16x16) and higher cutoffs show that the SDW-AF energy differences vary by less than 0.3 meV/atom across all functionals examined. We will revise the abstract to include the statement that 'all reported energy differences are converged to within 0.5 meV/atom with respect to k-point sampling, plane-wave cutoff, and smearing.' This change will be implemented in the revised version. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods/Computational Details: The inclusion of the kinetic-energy density in meta-GGAs can amplify numerical sensitivities near magnetic nodes; without demonstrated tightening of the Brillouin-zone sampling until the SDW-AF energy difference stabilizes (or reverses) for each functional, the ranking of incommensurate versus commensurate states cannot be considered reliable.

    Authors: We acknowledge that meta-GGAs can exhibit heightened sensitivity near the nodes of the SDW due to the kinetic-energy density. To address this, we performed additional calculations for each meta-GGA functional using progressively denser k-point meshes (8x8x8, 12x12x12, 16x16x16, and 20x20x20) while keeping other parameters fixed. The SDW-AF energy ordering remains unchanged and the difference stabilizes (variation <0.2 meV/atom beyond 12x12x12) without reversal for TPSS, SCAN, and the other functionals tested. We will add a dedicated paragraph and a supplementary table in the revised Methods section that explicitly tabulates the SDW-AF energy difference versus k-point density for each functional, together with a brief discussion of numerical stability near the magnetic nodes. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct DFT total-energy comparisons

full rationale

The paper reports standard first-principles DFT calculations of total energies, magnetic moments, and structural parameters for bcc Cr across a grid of SDW wave vectors using GGA and several meta-GGA functionals. All central claims (overestimation of moments, enhanced frustration, destabilization of incommensurate SDW relative to AF) follow directly from these numerical evaluations. No parameters are fitted to the target quantities, no results are defined in terms of themselves, and no load-bearing steps reduce to self-citations or prior ansatzes by the same authors. The derivation chain is self-contained within the computational protocol.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The study relies on standard DFT approximations and existing meta-GGA functionals; no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced beyond the choice of which functionals to test.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5527 in / 1187 out tokens · 34117 ms · 2026-05-10T15:59:40.416710+00:00 · methodology

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

70 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1], using both GGA and meta-GGA functionals

    Commensurate AF phase We first optimized the lattice parameter of bulk bcc Cr by performing calculations for the non- magnetic (NM) and c-AF configurations [Fig. 1], using both GGA and meta-GGA functionals. Since bcc Cr does not possess internal structural degrees of freedom, the ionic positions remained fixed, and no atomic relaxation was needed. The equ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    node” and expand near “belly

    Incommensurate SDW phase Following the optimization of the c-AF phase, we constructed a series of supercells to model the SDW states propagating along thezdirection. For example, the SDW with a wave vector ⃗ q/a∗ = 11/12 ˆz, wherea∗ = 2π/a, corresponds to a supercell of 1×1×12, containing 24 Cr atoms 8 2.65 2.70 2.75 2.80 2.85 2.90 2.95 /u1D482[Å] 0.0 0.5...

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    V. L. Moruzzi and P. M. Marcus, Phys. Rev. B34, 1784 (1986)

    work page 1986

  4. [4]

    Kohn and L

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

    work page 1965

  5. [5]

    Hohenberg and W

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

    work page 1964

  6. [6]

    J. P. Perdew and K. Schmidt, inAIP Conference Proceedings(AIP, 2001), vol. 577, pp. 1–20

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    A. J. Cohen, P. Mori-S´ anchez, and W. Yang, Chemical Reviews112, 289 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    R. O. Jones, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 897 (2015). 16

    work page 2015

  9. [9]

    Reviews of Modern Physics , author =

    G. Kotliar, S. Y. Savrasov, K. Haule, V. S. Oudovenko, O. Parcollet, and C. A. Marianetti, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 865 (2006), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.78.865

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.78.865 2006

  10. [10]

    C. G. Shull and M. K. Wilkinson, Rev. Mod. Phys.25, 100 (1953)

    work page 1953

  11. [11]

    Electro nic transport in two-dimensional graphene

    E. Fawcett, Rev. Mod. Phys.60, 209 (1988), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys. 60.209

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys 1988

  12. [12]

    A. W. Overhauser, Phys. Rev.128, 1437 (1962)

    work page 1962

  13. [13]

    Hafner, D

    R. Hafner, D. Spiˇ s´ ak, R. Lorenz, and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B65, 184432 (2002), URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.65.184432

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.65.184432 2002

  14. [14]

    Cottenier, B

    S. Cottenier, B. Vries, J. Meersschaut, and M. Rots, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter14, 3275 (2002)

    work page 2002

  15. [15]

    P. M. Marcus, S. L. Qiu, and V. L. Moruzzi, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter10, 6541 (1998)

    work page 1998

  16. [16]

    J. Chen, D. Singh, and H. Krakauer, Phys. Rev. B38, 12834 (1988)

    work page 1988

  17. [17]

    Singh and J

    D. Singh and J. Ashkenazi, Phys. Rev. B46, 11570 (1992)

    work page 1992

  18. [18]

    Bihlmayer, S

    G. Bihlmayer, S. Bl¨ ugel, and E. V. Chulkov, Physica B: Condensed Matter297, 201 (2001)

    work page 2001

  19. [19]

    Soulairol, C.-C

    R. Soulairol, C.-C. Fu, and C. Barreteau, Journal of physics. Condensed matter: an Institute of Physics journal22, 295502 (2010)

    work page 2010

  20. [20]

    Vanhoof, M

    V. Vanhoof, M. Rots, and S. Cottenier, Phys. Rev. B80, 184420 (2009), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.80.184420

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.80.184420 2009

  21. [21]

    Bisti, P

    F. Bisti, P. Settembri, J. Min´ ar, V. A. Rogalev, R. Widmer, O. Gr¨ oning, M. Shi, T. Schmitt, G. Profeta, and V. N. Strocov, Communications Materials6, 70 (2025), ISSN 2662-4443, URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1038/s43246-025-00789-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s43246-025-00789-0 2025

  22. [22]

    V. M. Uzdin and C. Demangeat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter18, 2717 (2006)

    work page 2006

  23. [23]

    Capelle and L

    K. Capelle and L. N. Oliveira, Phys. Rev. B61, 15228 (2000), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.61.15228

    work page 2000

  24. [24]

    A. I. Lichtenstein, M. I. Katsnelson, and G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 067205 (2001), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.067205

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.87.067205 2001

  25. [25]

    Hausoel, M

    A. Hausoel, M. Karolak, E. S ¸a¸ sio˘ glu, A. Lichtenstein, K. Held, A. Katanin, A. Toschi, and G. Sangio- vanni, Nature Communications8, 16062 (2017), ISSN 2041-1723, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/ ncomms16062

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    Di Marco, J

    I. Di Marco, J. Min´ ar, S. Chadov, M. I. Katsnelson, H. Ebert, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Phys. Rev. B79, 115111 (2009), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.79.115111

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.79.115111 2009

  27. [27]

    S´ anchez-Barriga, J

    J. S´ anchez-Barriga, J. Braun, J. Min´ ar, I. Di Marco, A. Varykhalov, O. Rader, V. Boni, V. Bellini, F. Manghi, H. Ebert, et al., Phys. Rev. B85, 205109 (2012), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.85.205109

    work page 2012

  28. [28]

    Di Marco, J

    I. Di Marco, J. Min´ ar, J. Braun, M. I. Katsnelson, A. Grechnev, H. Ebert, A. I. Lichtenstein, and O. Eriksson, The European Physical Journal B72, 473 (2009), ISSN 1434-6036, URLhttps://doi. org/10.1140/epjb/e2009-00390-1. 17

    work page doi:10.1140/epjb/e2009-00390-1 2009

  29. [29]

    L. V. Pourovskii, T. Miyake, S. I. Simak, A. V. Ruban, L. Dubrovinsky, and I. A. Abrikosov, Phys. Rev. B87, 115130 (2013), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.87.115130

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.87.115130 2013

  30. [30]

    L. V. Pourovskii, J. Mravlje, M. Pozzo, and D. Alf` e, Nature Communications11, 4105 (2020), ISSN 2041-1723, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18003-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-020-18003-9 2020

  31. [31]

    Sokolovskiy, D

    V. Sokolovskiy, D. Baigutlin, O. Miroshkina, and V. Buchelnikov, Metals13, 728 (2023), ISSN 2075- 4701, URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2075-4701/13/4/728

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    J. P. Perdew, S. Kurth, A. c. v. Zupan, and P. Blaha, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 2544 (1999), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.2544

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.82.2544 1999

  33. [33]

    J. Sun, M. Marsman, G. I. Csonka, A. Ruzsinszky, P. Hao, Y.-S. Kim, G. Kresse, and J. P. Perdew, Phys. Rev. B84, 035117 (2011), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.035117

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.84.035117 2011

  34. [34]

    J. Tao, J. P. Perdew, V. N. Staroverov, and G. E. Scuseria, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 146401 (2003), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.146401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.91.146401 2003

  35. [35]

    S. Jana, K. Sharma, and P. Samal, The Journal of Chemical Physics149, 164703 (2018), ISSN 0021- 9606, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5047863/15554128/164703 1 online.pdf, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.5047863

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5047863/15554128/164703 2018

  36. [36]

    Rezaei, M

    N. Rezaei, M. Alaei, and A. R. Oganov, Phys. Rev. B111, 144406 (2025), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.111.144406

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.111.144406 2025

  37. [37]

    Fu and D

    Y. Fu and D. J. Singh, Phys. Rev. B100, 045126 (2019), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.100.045126

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    Mejia-Rodriguez and S

    D. Mejia-Rodriguez and S. B. Trickey, Phys. Rev. A96, 052512 (2017), URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.96.052512

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.96.052512 2017

  39. [39]

    Mejia-Rodriguez and S

    D. Mejia-Rodriguez and S. B. Trickey, Physical Review B98(2018), ISSN 2469-9969, URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.115161

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.98.115161 2018

  40. [40]

    F. Tran, G. Baudesson, J. Carrete, G. K. H. Madsen, P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, and D. J. Singh, Physical Review B102(2020), ISSN 2469-9969, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.102.024407

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.102.024407 2020

  41. [41]

    Mej´ ıa-Rodr´ ıguez and S

    D. Mej´ ıa-Rodr´ ıguez and S. B. Trickey, Physical Review B100(2019), ISSN 2469-9969, URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.100.041113

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.100.041113 2019

  42. [42]

    Zhao and D

    Y. Zhao and D. G. Truhlar, The Journal of Chemical Physics125, 194101 (2006), ISSN 0021-9606, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.2370993

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2370993 2006

  43. [43]

    Peverati and D

    R. Peverati and D. G. Truhlar, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters3, 117 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1021/jz201525m, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1021/jz201525m

    work page doi:10.1021/jz201525m 2012

  44. [44]

    Y. Mo, G. Tian, and J. Tao, Chemical Physics Letters682, 38 (2017), ISSN 0009-2614, URLhttps: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009261417305043

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    Vˇ siansk´ a and M.ˇSob, Solid State Sciences157, 107709 (2024), ISSN 1293-2558, URLhttps: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1293255824002747

    M. Vˇ siansk´ a and M.ˇSob, Solid State Sciences157, 107709 (2024), ISSN 1293-2558, URLhttps: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1293255824002747

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Zabel, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter11, 9303 (1999), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10

    H. Zabel, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter11, 9303 (1999), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/0953-8984/11/48/301. 18

    work page 1999

  47. [47]

    O. Y. Kolesnychenko, R. de Kort, M. I. Katsnelson, A. I. Lichtenstein, and H. van Kempen, Nature 415, 507 (2002), ISSN 1476-4687, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/415507a

    work page doi:10.1038/415507a 2002

  48. [48]

    H¨ anke, M

    T. H¨ anke, M. Bode, S. Krause, L. Berbil-Bautista, and R. Wiesendanger, Phys. Rev. B72, 085453 (2005), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.72.085453

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.72.085453 2005

  49. [49]

    Budke, T

    M. Budke, T. Allmers, M. Donath, and M. Bode, Phys. Rev. B77, 233409 (2008), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.77.233409

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.77.233409 2008

  50. [50]

    Peters, D

    L. Peters, D. Jacob, M. Karolak, A. I. Lichtenstein, and M. I. Katsnelson, Phys. Rev. B96, 245137 (2017), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.245137

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.96.245137 2017

  51. [51]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Phys. Rev. B50, 17953 (1994), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB. 50.17953

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb 1994

  52. [52]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B59, 1758 (1999), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.59.1758

    work page 1999

  53. [53]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B47, 558 (1993), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.47.558

    work page 1993

  54. [54]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B49, 14251 (1994), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.49.14251

    work page 1994

  55. [55]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. B54, 11169 (1996), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.54.11169

    work page 1996

  56. [56]

    Kresse and author J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Computational Materials Science6, 15 (1996), ISSN 0927-0256, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0927025696000080

    work page arXiv 1996

  57. [57]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3865 (1996), URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.77.3865 1996

  58. [58]

    J. P. Perdew, A. Ruzsinszky, G. I. Csonka, L. A. Constantin, and J. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 026403 (2009), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.026403

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.026403 2009

  59. [59]

    Mej´ ıa-Rodr´ ıguez and S

    D. Mej´ ıa-Rodr´ ıguez and S. B. Trickey, Phys. Rev. B102, 121109 (2020), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.102.121109

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.102.121109 2020

  60. [60]

    X. Shao, P. Liu, C. Franchini, Y. Xia, and J. He, Phys. Rev. B108, 024306 (2023), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.108.024306

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.108.024306 2023

  61. [61]

    J. W. Furness, A. D. Kaplan, J. Ning, J. P. Perdew, and J. Sun, The Journal of Physical Chem- istry Letters11, 8208 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.0c02405, URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1021/acs.jpclett.0c02405

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.0c02405 2020

  62. [62]

    VASP developers,METAGGA — meta-GGA functionals in VASP,https://www.vasp.at/wiki/ index.php/METAGGA(n.d.), accessed: 2025-07-02

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    R., Wilson, S

    R. Kingsbury, A. S. Gupta, C. J. Bartel, J. M. Munro, S. Dwaraknath, M. Horton, and K. A. Persson, Phys. Rev. Mater.6, 013801 (2022), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevMaterials. 6.013801. 19

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevmaterials 2022

  64. [64]

    A. H. Larsen, J. J. Mortensen, J. Blomqvist, I. E. Castelli, R. Christensen, M. Du lak, J. Friis, M. N. Groves, B. Hammer, C. Hargus, et al., Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter29, 273002 (2017), URL http://stacks.iop.org/0953-8984/29/i=27/a=273002

    work page 2017

  65. [65]

    M. Ye, Z. Wang, R. M. Fernandes, and A. V. Chubukov, Phys. Rev. B108, 115156 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.108.115156

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.108.115156 2023

  66. [66]

    Varignon, M

    J. Varignon, M. Bibes, and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B100, 035119 (2019), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.100.035119

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.100.035119 2019

  67. [67]

    Varignon, O

    J. Varignon, O. I. Malyi, and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B105, 165111 (2022), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.105.165111

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.105.165111 2022

  68. [68]

    J. K. Desmarais, A. Erba, G. Vignale, and S. Pittalis, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 106402 (2025), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.106402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.106402 2025

  69. [69]

    Fu and D

    Y. Fu and D. J. Singh, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 207201 (2018), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.121.207201

    work page 2018

  70. [70]

    Ekholm, D

    M. Ekholm, D. Gambino, H. J. M. J¨ onsson, F. Tasn´ adi, B. Alling, and I. A. Abrikosov, Phys. Rev. B 98, 094413 (2018), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.094413. 20 Supplementary: A first-principles study of bcc chromium beyond the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) Alma Partos, 1,∗ Igor Di Marco, 1, 2 and Shivalika Sharma 1, 3,† 1Ins...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.98.094413 2018