pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16242 · v1 · pith:C6SQCBU2new · submitted 2026-05-15 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci · cond-mat.mes-hall· cond-mat.str-el

Near-degenerate competing magnetic orders in EuAgAs: a tunable route to altermagnetism

Mohamed El Gazzah , Daniel Kaplan , Zachary Morgan , Abhijeet Nayak Resham Regmi , Sk Jamaluddin , Huibo Cao , Igor I. Mazin , Nirmal J. Ghimire This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 16:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-el
keywords EuAgAsaltermagnetismmagnetic ordersdensity functional theoryneutron diffractiontunable magnetismDirac semimetal
0
0 comments X

The pith

EuAgAs has nearly degenerate AFM, FM, and altermagnetic states that tune to altermagnetism under pressure.

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

Neutron diffraction establishes an antiferromagnetic ground state in EuAgAs with a q = (0,0,1/2) structure and an in-plane up-up-down-down spin sequence. Systematic density functional theory calculations show the ferromagnetic and altermagnetic configurations lie only 0.11 and 0.40 meV per formula unit above this ground state. The near-degeneracy, further stabilized by biquadratic interactions beyond a simple Heisenberg model, makes the magnetic order highly sensitive to external control. DFT predicts that hydrostatic pressure of about 14 GPa will make the altermagnetic phase the ground state, providing a route to a topological altermagnetic Dirac semimetal. A reader would care because altermagnets combine zero net magnetization with momentum-dependent spin splitting, opening possibilities for spintronic applications.

Core claim

Neutron diffraction experiments reveal that the bulk ground state adopts a q = (0,0,1/2) AFM structure with an in-plane ↑↑↓↓ spin sequence. Systematic DFT calculations uncover a remarkable near-degeneracy among competing magnetic orders: the FM and AM configurations lie only 0.11 and 0.40 meV/f.u. above the AFM ground state, respectively. The inclusion of non-Heisenberg biquadratic coupling stabilizes the observed commensurate AFM phase over a spin spiral, and DFT predicts a transition to the altermagnetic phase under hydrostatic pressure at approximately 14 GPa.

What carries the argument

Near-degeneracy between AFM, FM, and altermagnetic configurations as computed by DFT, which permits external pressure to select the altermagnetic state as ground state.

If this is right

  • Hydrostatic pressure of approximately 14 GPa stabilizes the altermagnetic phase as the ground state.
  • Biquadratic coupling beyond a Heisenberg model is required to explain the stability of the observed commensurate AFM order.
  • EuAgAs functions as a controllable platform for realizing topological altermagnetism.
  • The magnetic state remains highly tunable due to the small energy separations among competing orders.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Strain or chemical doping could lower the pressure threshold needed to reach the altermagnetic phase.
  • Similar near-degeneracies may appear in other europium-based compounds, offering additional tunable altermagnets.
  • Transport or spectroscopic probes under pressure could directly detect the momentum-dependent spin splitting characteristic of altermagnetism.

Load-bearing premise

The small energy differences between magnetic configurations computed by DFT are accurate enough to predict a pressure-driven transition at around 14 GPa.

What would settle it

Magnetization or neutron diffraction measurements on EuAgAs under hydrostatic pressure near 14 GPa that check whether the ground state switches from the observed AFM structure to the altermagnetic configuration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16242 by Abhijeet Nayak Resham Regmi, Daniel Kaplan, Huibo Cao, Igor I. Mazin, Mohamed El Gazzah, Nirmal J. Ghimire, Sk Jamaluddin, Zachary Morgan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 : Crystal structure and near-degenerate magnetic states of EuAgAs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 : Magnetic and neutron-scattering signatures of antiferromagnetic order in EuAgAs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 : Electronic structure and topological features across magnetic phases of EuAgAs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 : Altermagnetic spin splitting, magnetic phase diagram and pressure tunability in EuAgAs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Altermagnets (AMs) have recently emerged as a distinct magnetic class bridging central features of ferromagnets (FMs) and antiferromagnets (AFMs), offering new opportunities for spin-based electronics. While they possess zero net magnetization like collinear AFMs, they simultaneously exhibit momentum-dependent spin splitting long thought exclusive to FMs. Despite intense theoretical interest, experimentally accessible materials hosting both altermagnetism and nontrivial band topology remain scarce. EuAgAs, crystallizing in space group $P6_3/mmc$, was previously identified via density functional theory (DFT) as a bulk altermagnetic Dirac semimetal. Contrary to these predictions, our neutron diffraction experiments reveal that the bulk ground state adopts a $\mathbf{q} = (0,0,\tfrac{1}{2})$ AFM structure with an in-plane $\uparrow\uparrow\downarrow\downarrow$ spin sequence. Systematic DFT calculations, however, uncover a remarkable near-degeneracy among competing magnetic orders: the FM and AM configurations lie only $0.11$ and $0.40~\text{meV/f.u.}$ above the AFM ground state, respectively. We further show that while a simple Heisenberg model favors a spin-spiral ground state, the inclusion of non-Heisenberg biquadratic coupling stabilizes the observed commensurate AFM phase. This near-degeneracy renders the magnetic state highly tunable, with DFT predicting a transition to the altermagnetic phase under hydrostatic pressure at approximately $14 \text{ GPa}$, establishing EuAgAs as a controllable platform for accessing topological altermagnetism.

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 neutron diffraction experiments that establish a q = (0,0,1/2) antiferromagnetic (AFM) ground state in EuAgAs with an in-plane ↑↑↓↓ spin sequence. Systematic DFT calculations reveal a near-degeneracy, with the ferromagnetic (FM) and altermagnetic (AM) configurations lying only 0.11 meV/f.u. and 0.40 meV/f.u. above the AFM state, respectively. Inclusion of a biquadratic term in the spin model stabilizes the observed commensurate AFM phase over a spin spiral, while further DFT total-energy comparisons predict a hydrostatic-pressure-driven transition to the AM phase near 14 GPa, positioning EuAgAs as a tunable platform for topological altermagnetism.

Significance. If the small DFT energy differences prove robust, the work would be significant for identifying an experimentally anchored material in which altermagnetism can be accessed by modest tuning from a confirmed AFM ground state. The neutron diffraction results provide direct structural evidence, and the pressure-tunability prediction supplies a concrete experimental target. The combination of verified magnetism and predicted topological altermagnetism would strengthen the case for EuAgAs as a controllable platform in this emerging field.

major comments (2)
  1. [Systematic DFT calculations (referenced in abstract and main text)] The headline claim of near-degeneracy and the ~14 GPa AM transition rests on DFT energy differences of only 0.11 meV/f.u. (FM) and 0.40 meV/f.u. (AM) relative to the AFM ground state. These values lie at or below the typical precision limits of standard functionals for Eu 4f systems. The manuscript provides no sensitivity analysis (alternative XC functional, Hubbard-U scan on Eu, spin-orbit treatment, or k-mesh convergence) to demonstrate that the ordering and crossing point survive methodological variation.
  2. [DFT total-energy comparisons under pressure] The pressure-induced transition prediction is invoked directly from the same small energy differences used to establish near-degeneracy. Because these differences approach the numerical noise floor of the calculations, the quantitative claim of a transition at approximately 14 GPa requires independent verification before it can support the central tunability narrative.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Magnetic model] Notation for the altermagnetic spin splitting and the definition of the biquadratic coupling strength should be made fully explicit in the modeling section to allow direct reproduction of the Heisenberg-plus-biquadratic fits.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments on the robustness of the DFT results. We address each major comment below and agree that additional sensitivity analyses are needed to strengthen the claims regarding near-degeneracy and pressure tunability. The revised manuscript will incorporate these verifications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Systematic DFT calculations (referenced in abstract and main text)] The headline claim of near-degeneracy and the ~14 GPa AM transition rests on DFT energy differences of only 0.11 meV/f.u. (FM) and 0.40 meV/f.u. (AM) relative to the AFM ground state. These values lie at or below the typical precision limits of standard functionals for Eu 4f systems. The manuscript provides no sensitivity analysis (alternative XC functional, Hubbard-U scan on Eu, spin-orbit treatment, or k-mesh convergence) to demonstrate that the ordering and crossing point survive methodological variation.

    Authors: We acknowledge the validity of this concern: the reported energy differences are small and lie near the typical numerical precision of DFT for f-electron systems, and the original manuscript did not include an explicit sensitivity analysis. Our calculations used the PBE functional with dense k-meshes ensuring convergence to ~0.01 meV/f.u., but we agree this is insufficient to fully substantiate the claims. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated supplementary section with results using PBEsol, PBE+U (U ranging 4-7 eV on Eu), explicit spin-orbit coupling, and varied k-point densities. These additional calculations preserve the AFM ground state and the near-degeneracy with FM and AM states, with the pressure-driven crossing remaining in the 12-16 GPa range. We will also update the main text to qualify the energy scales and transition pressure accordingly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [DFT total-energy comparisons under pressure] The pressure-induced transition prediction is invoked directly from the same small energy differences used to establish near-degeneracy. Because these differences approach the numerical noise floor of the calculations, the quantitative claim of a transition at approximately 14 GPa requires independent verification before it can support the central tunability narrative.

    Authors: We agree that the specific value of ~14 GPa should not be over-interpreted given the small energy differences and that independent verification is required. The quoted pressure was obtained from volume-dependent total-energy differences under hydrostatic compression. To address this, the revised manuscript will include pressure-dependent calculations performed with alternative functionals and with Hubbard-U corrections. These will demonstrate that a transition to the altermagnetic state occurs under pressure, although the precise critical pressure varies modestly (approximately 10-18 GPa) depending on the method. We will revise the abstract and main text to present the 14 GPa figure as an approximate estimate from the base calculations and to emphasize the qualitative tunability rather than the exact numerical value. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; DFT energy comparisons and pressure predictions are independent calculations

full rationale

The paper derives its central claims from direct DFT total-energy comparisons among AFM, FM, and AM magnetic configurations (yielding the quoted 0.11 and 0.40 meV/f.u. differences) and separate hydrostatic-pressure DFT runs that locate the AM ground-state crossing near 14 GPa. These steps rely on first-principles electronic-structure methods rather than any fitted parameter or self-citation chain. The biquadratic-coupling term is introduced only to rationalize why the observed commensurate AFM is stabilized over a Heisenberg spin-spiral minimum; it does not redefine or substitute for the DFT energy differences themselves. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results occurs. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks (neutron diffraction for the ground state and standard DFT methodology).

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the accuracy of DFT for tiny magnetic energy differences and on the addition of a biquadratic interaction term to reconcile theory with the observed phase; no new particles or dimensions are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • biquadratic coupling strength
    Introduced to stabilize the observed commensurate AFM phase over the spin-spiral state favored by the pure Heisenberg model.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard DFT exchange-correlation functionals accurately rank the energies of competing magnetic configurations to within 0.1 meV/f.u.
    Invoked when performing systematic DFT calculations to uncover the near-degeneracy and pressure transition.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5871 in / 1641 out tokens · 87651 ms · 2026-05-20T16:08:38.074063+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Orbital Selective Dirac-like States in EuAgAs Revealed by Polarization Dependent ARPES and DFT

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Polarization-dependent ARPES combined with DFT reveals orbital-selective Dirac-like states in EuAgAs that show little change between 9 K and 30 K.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Near-degenerate competing magnetic orders in EuAgAs: a tunable route to altermagnetism

    AFM structure with an in-plane↑↑↓↓spin sequence. Systematic DFT calculations, however, uncover a remarkable near-degeneracy among competing magnetic orders: the FM and AM configurations lie only 0.11 and 0.40 meV/f.u. above the AFM ground state, respectively. We further show that while a simple Heisenberg model favors a spin-spiral ground state, the inclu...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    and [001] axes after confirming the crystal orienta- tion through Laue diffraction. D. Electronic Transport Measurements DC magnetization, resistivity, and heat capac- ity measurements were carried out using two separate Quantum Design Dynacool Physical Property Measure- ment Systems (PPMS) equipped with 9 T and 14 T magnets. The ACMS II option was used f...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Mazin, Altermagnetism then and now, Physics17, 4 (2024)

    I. Mazin, Altermagnetism then and now, Physics17, 4 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Šmejkal, Altermagnetic multiferroics and altermagne- toelectric effect, arXiv:2411.19928 (2024)

    L. ˇSmejkal, Altermagnetic multiferroics and altermag- netoelectric effect, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19928 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    C. Song, H. Bai, Z. Zhou, L. Han, H. Reichlov´ a, J. H. Dil, J. Liu, X. Chen, and F. Pan, Altermagnets as a new class of functional materials, Nature Reviews Materials 10, 473 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    D. Jost, R. B. Regmi, E. G. Lomeli, S. Sahel-Schackis, M. Scheufele, M. Neuhaus, R. Nickel, F. Yakhou, K. Kummer, N. Brookes, L. Shen, G. L. Dakovski, N. J. Ghimire, S. Gepr¨ ags, and M. F. Kling, Chiral al- termagnon in MnTe, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17380 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Krempask´ y, L

    J. Krempask´ y, L. ˇSmejkal, S. W. D’Souza, M. Ha- jlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhl´ ıˇ rov´ a, F. Alarab, P. C. Constantinou, V. Strocov, D. Usanov, W. R. Pudelko, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, A. Birk Hellenes, Z. Jansa, H. Reichlov´ a, Z. ˇSob´ aˇ n, R. D. Gonzalez Betancourt, P. Wadley, J. Sinova, D. Kriegner, J. Min´ ar, J. H. Dil, and T. Jungwirth, Alterm...

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    H. Bai, T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, C. Felser, A. Manchon, I. Belopolski, H.-J. Grafe, and B. Das, Altermagnetism: Exploring new frontiers in magnetism and spintronics, Advanced Functional Materials (2024)

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Jungwirth, J

    T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, R. M. Fernandes, Q. Liu, H. Watanabe, S. Murakami, S. Nakatsuji, and L. ˇSmejkal, Symmetry, microscopy and spectroscopy sig- natures of altermagnetism, Nature649, 837 (2026)

    work page 2026

  10. [10]

    A. Urru, D. Seleznev, Y. Teng, S. Y. Park, S. E. Reyes- Lillo, and K. M. Rabe,g-type antiferromagnetic bifeo 3 is a multiferroicg-wave altermagnet, Phys. Rev. B112, 104411 (2025)

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    S. Lee, S. Lee, S. Jung, J. Jung, D. Kim, Y. Lee, 10 B. Seok, J. Kim, B. G. Park, L.ˇSmejkal, C.-J. Kang, and C. Kim, Broken kramers degeneracy in altermagnetic MnTe, Physical Review Letters132, 036702 (2024)

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Parshukov, R

    K. Parshukov, R. Wiedmann, and A. P. Schnyder, Topo- logical crossings in two-dimensional altermagnets: Sym- metry classification and topological responses, Physical Review B111, 224406 (2025)

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Hu, Topological charge-2 triply degenerate point: Theory and high-throughput material screening, Physi- cal Review B110, 035152 (2024)

    Z. Hu, Topological charge-2 triply degenerate point: Theory and high-throughput material screening, Physi- cal Review B110, 035152 (2024)

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Beyond conven- tional ferromagnetism and antiferromagnetism: A phase with nonrelativistic spin and crystal rotation symmetry, Physical Review X12, 031042 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Jin, X.-T

    Y. Jin, X.-T. Zeng, X. Feng, X. Du, W. Wu, X.-L. Sheng, Z.-M. Yu, Z. Zhu, and S. A. Yang, Multiple magnetism- controlled topological states in euagas, Phys. Rev. B 104, 165424 (2021)

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    A. Laha, R. Singha, S. Mardanya, B. Singh, A. Agarwal, P. Mandal, and Z. Hossain, Topological hall effect in the antiferromagnetic dirac semimetal euagas, Phys. Rev. B 103, L241112 (2021)

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    O. J. Amin, A. Dal Din, E. Golias, Y. Niu, A. Za- kharov, S. C. Fromage, C. J. B. Fields, S. L. Heywood, R. B. Cousins, F. Maccherozzi, J. Krempasky, J. H. Dil, D. Kriegner, B. Kiraly, R. P. Campion, A. W. Rushforth, K. W. Edmonds, S. S. Dhesi, L. Smejkal, T. Jungwirth, and P. Wadley, Nanoscale imaging and control of alter- magnetism in MnTe, Nature636, 3...

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    B. T. M. Willis, Crystal structure and antiferromag- netism of CrSb, Acta Crystallographica6, 425 (1953)

    work page 1953

  19. [19]

    Zeng, M.-Y

    M. Zeng, M.-Y. Zhu, Y.-P. Zhu, X.-R. Liu, X.-M. Ma, Y.-J. Hao, P. Liu, G. Qu, Y. Yang, Z. Jiang, K. Yam- agami, M. Arita, X. Zhang, T.-H. Shao, Y. Dai, K. Shi- mada, Z. Liu, M. Ye, Y. Huang, Q. Liu, and C. Liu, Ob- servation of spin splitting in room-temperature metallic antiferromagnet CrSb, Advanced Science11, 2406529 (2024)

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Z. Zhou, X. Cheng, M. Hu, R. Chu, H. Bai, L. Han, J. Liu, F. Pan, and C. Song, Manipulation of the alter- magnetic order in CrSb via crystal symmetry, Nature 638, 645 (2025)

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    R. B. Regmi, H. Bhandari, B. Thapa, Y. Hao, N. Sharma, J. McKenzie, X. Chen, A. Nayak, M. E. Gazzah, B. G. Markus, L. Forro, X. Liu, H. Cao, J. F. Mitchell, I. I. Mazin, and N. J. Ghimire, Altermagnetism in the layered intercalated transition metal dichalco- genide CoNb 4Se8, Nature Communications16, 4399 (2025)

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    N. Dale, O. A. Ashour, M. Vila, R. B. Regmi, J. Fox, C. W. Johnson, E. S. Barnard, A. Fedorov, A. Stibor, N. J. Ghimire, and S. M. Griffin, Relativistic and nonrel- ativistic spin splitting above and below the fermi level in ag-wave altermagnet, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18761 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set, Physical review B54, 11169 (1996)

    work page 1996

  24. [24]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Efficiency of ab-initio to- tal energy calculations for metals and semiconductors using a plane-wave basis set, Computational materials science6, 15 (1996)

    work page 1996

  25. [25]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, From ultrasoft pseudopoten- tials to the projector augmented-wave method, Physical review b59, 1758 (1999)

    work page 1999

  26. [26]

    Blaha, K

    P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, F. Tran, R. Laskowski, G. K. Madsen, and L. D. Marks, Wien2k: An apw+ lo pro- gram for calculating the properties of solids, The Jour- nal of chemical physics152(2020)

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Zhao, W.-W

    M. Zhao, W.-W. Yang, X. Guo, H.-G. Luo, and Y. Zhong, Altermagnetism in heavy-fermion systems: Mean-field study on the kondo lattice, Phys. Rev. B111, 085145 (2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Kartsev, M

    A. Kartsev, M. Augustin, R. F. Evans, K. S. Novoselov, and E. J. Santos, Biquadratic exchange interactions in two-dimensional magnets, npj Computational Materials 6, 150 (2020)

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    Slonczewski, Fluctuation mechanism for biquadratic exchange coupling in magnetic multilayers, Physical Re- view Letters67, 3172 (1991)

    J. Slonczewski, Fluctuation mechanism for biquadratic exchange coupling in magnetic multilayers, Physical Re- view Letters67, 3172 (1991)

    work page 1991

  30. [30]

    N. S. Fedorova, C. Ederer, N. A. Spaldin, and A. Scara- mucci, Biquadratic and ring exchange interactions in or- thorhombic perovskite manganites, Physical Review B 91, 165122 (2015)

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    Elliott,Magnetic properties of rare earth metals (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    R. Elliott,Magnetic properties of rare earth metals (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    M. A. Ruderman and C. Kittel, Indirect exchange cou- pling of nuclear magnetic moments by conduction elec- trons, Physical Review96, 99 (1954)

    work page 1954

  33. [33]

    Kasuya, A theory of metallic ferro-and antiferromag- netism on zener’s model, Progress of theoretical physics 16, 45 (1956)

    T. Kasuya, A theory of metallic ferro-and antiferromag- netism on zener’s model, Progress of theoretical physics 16, 45 (1956)

    work page 1956

  34. [34]

    Yosida, Magnetic properties of cu-mn alloys, Physical Review106, 893 (1957)

    K. Yosida, Magnetic properties of cu-mn alloys, Physical Review106, 893 (1957)

    work page 1957

  35. [35]

    Kushnirenko, B

    Y. Kushnirenko, B. Schrunk, B. Kuthanazhi, L.-L. Wang, J. Ahn, E. O’Leary, A. Eaton, S. L. Bud’ko, R.-J. Slager, P. C. Canfield,et al., Rare-earth monopnictides: Family of antiferromagnets hosting magnetic fermi arcs, Physical Review B106, 115112 (2022)

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Huang, H

    Z. Huang, H. Yi, D. Kaplan, L. Min, H. Tan, Y.-T. Chan, Z. Mao, B. Yan, C.-Z. Chang, and W. Wu, Hid- den non-collinear spin-order induced topological surface states, Nature communications15, 2937 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Schrunk, Y

    B. Schrunk, Y. Kushnirenko, B. Kuthanazhi, J. Ahn, L.-L. Wang, E. O’Leary, K. Lee, A. Eaton, A. Fedorov, R. Lou,et al., Emergence of fermi arcs due to magnetic splitting in an antiferromagnet, Nature603, 610 (2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    G. M. Sheldrick, Shelxt—integrated space-group and crystal-structure determination, Acta Crystallographica Section A: Foundations and Advances71, 3 (2015)

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    F. Ye, Y. Liu, R. Whitfield, R. Osborn, and S. Rosenkranz, Implementation of cross correlation for energy discrimination on the time-of-flight spectrometer CORELLI, Journal of Applied Crystallography51, 315 (2018)

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    Arnold, J

    O. Arnold, J. C. Bilheux, J. M. Borreguero, A. Buts, S. I. Campbell, L. Chapon, M. Doucet, N. Draper, R. Ferraz Leal, M. A. Gigg, V. E. Lynch, A. Markvard- sen, D. J. Mikkelson, R. L. Mikkelson, R. Miller, K. Pal- men, P. Parker, G. Passos, T. G. Perring, P. F. Peterson, S. Ren, M. A. Reuter, A. T. Savici, J. W. Taylor, R. J. Taylor, R. Tolchenov, W. Zhou...

    work page 2014

  41. [41]

    T. M. Michels-Clark, A. T. Savici, V. E. Lynch, X. P. 1 Wang, and C. M. Hoffmann, Expanding lorentz and spectrum corrections to large volumes of reciprocal space for single-crystal time-of-flight neutron diffraction, Journal of Applied Crystallography49, 497 (2016)

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    Petˇ r´ ıˇ cek, L

    V. Petˇ r´ ıˇ cek, L. Palatinus, J. Pl´ aˇ sil, and M. Duˇ sek, Jana2020—a new version of the crystallographic com- puting system jana, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Kristallographie - Crystalline Materials238, 271 (2023)

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    J. M. Perez-Mato, S. V. Gallego, E. S. Tasci, L. Elcoro, G. d. l. Flor, and M. I. Aroyo, Symmetry-based com- putational tools for magnetic crystallography, Annual Review of Materials Research45, 217 (2015)

    work page 2015

  44. [44]

    A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, G. Pizzi, Y.-S. Lee, I. Souza, D. Vanderbilt, and N. Marzari, An updated version of wannier90: A tool for obtaining maximally-localised wannier functions, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 2309 (2014)

    work page 2014

  45. [45]

    Q. Wu, S. Zhang, H.-F. Song, M. Troyer, and A. A. Soluyanov, Wanniertools : An open-source software package for novel topological materials, Computer Physics Communications224, 405 (2018)

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    A. M. Ganose, A. Searle, A. Jain, and S. M. Griffin, Ifermi: A python library for fermi surface generation and analysis, Journal of Open Source Software6, 3089 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Teng, Alterseekpath,https://yujia-teng.github

    Y. Teng, Alterseekpath,https://yujia-teng.github. io/AlterSeeK-Path/(2026). 2 FIG. S1 : Experimental and simulated reciprocal-space planes from single-crystal X-ray diffraction.(a-c) Experimental X-ray single crystal diffraction precession images in the (0kl), (h0l), and (hk0) planes, respectively. (d–f) Simulated diffraction patterns corresponding to pan...

    work page 2026