Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Tuneable magnetic behaviour, electronic structure and nitrogen vacancy formation in Gd$_{x}$Sm$_{1-x}$N

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that in the ferromagnetic semiconductor alloy GdxSm1−xN, replacing gadolinium with samarium changes the coercive field by orders of magnitude while the internal exchange field changes by only about 20%, and that nitrogen va

desk verdict A genuinely useful combined study of GdxSm1−xN, but the vacancy-formation claim is confounded and the DFT numbers are less certain than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29472 v1 pith:5GFZAANZ submitted 2026-07-31 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Omri Porat , Elma Joshy , Jackson Miller , Simon Granville , William Holmes-Hewett This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords rare-earthnitridesGdSmNalloyexchangesplittingcoercivefieldnitrogenvacanciesDFT+Usuperconductingspintronicsferromagneticsemiconductor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the magnetic hardness of GdxSm1−xN—measured by the coercive field, or the magnetic field needed to reverse the magnetization—can be tuned across orders of magnitude simply by adjusting the ratio of gadolinium to samarium, while the internal exchange field, the energy splitting between spin-up and spin-down conduction states, remains nearly constant, shifting by only about 20%. It further argues that nitrogen vacancies, which degrade these films, form much more readily when surrounded by samarium ions than by gadolinium ions, explaining why samarium-rich films show more vacancy defects. This combination of tunable coercivity with a nearly stable exchange field is precisely what is needed for superconducting spintronics devices, where matching the exchange field across magnetic layers is critical.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 5d conduction-band exchange splitting, EX, the half-difference between the majority- and minority-spin 5d band minima at the X point of the rocksalt Brillouin zone. Band-structure calculations using DFT+U with Hubbard parameters for the 4f and 5d states trace how EX evolves with alloy composition, and the ratio of Sm to Gd spin quantum numbers (5/7) serves as a simple parameter-free estimate for the splitting ratio. For the vacancy energetics, the paper computes formation energies from total-energy differences of pristine and defective supercells, with the key variable being the coordination of the vacancy—how many of its nearest neighbors are Sm versus Gd.

What would settle it

Measure, for a series of GdxSm1−xN films of known composition, the optical gap in the ferromagnetic state and the coercive field at 5 K. If the inferred exchange splitting (from the spin-split conduction band) changes by much more than 20% while the coercive field changes by orders of magnitude, the decoupling claim fails. For the vacancy claim, use X-ray absorption fine structure or positron annihilation to map the local coordination of nitrogen vacancies; if vacancies in a Sm-rich film are not predominantly six-Sm-coordinated, the formation-energy prediction is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that cation substitution in GdxSm1−xN provides independent control of two magnetic quantities: the coercive field spans several orders of magnitude from GdN to SmN, while the 5d conduction-band exchange splitting varies only from 0.65 eV in GdN to 0.5 eV in SmN, a change of about 20%. This decoupling arises because the exchange splitting is governed by the spin polarization of the 4f states and their hybridization with the 5d bands—a first approximation based on the ratio of spin quantum numbers S_Sm/S_Gd = 5/7 ≈ 0.71, close to the computed splitting ratio of 0.77—whereas the coercive field is controlled by the net magnetization, which nearly vanishes in SmN due to spin-

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative exchange-splitting and vacancy-formation energies come from DFT+U calculations whose Hubbard U parameters for the 4f and 5d electrons are fitted to experimental data on the end members rather than derived from first principles; if these parameters do not transfer faithfully to the alloy, the exact ~20% variation and the absolute defect energies could be off, though the qualitative trend of Sm-favored vacancies may survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A hard/soft magnetic pair with nearly equal exchange splitting can be made within one alloy system, enabling switchable 0-π Josephson junctions where the relative alignment of layers selects the superconducting phase.
  • SmN, with its finite exchange splitting but near-zero net moment, could be used in a magnetic Josephson junction with strongly reduced fringe fields.
  • Nitrogen vacancies will predominantly occupy Sm-coordinated sites, so electron transport in Gd-rich films may come to resemble the localized-state behavior of SmN rather than the extended-state behavior of GdN.
  • The low formation energy of Sm-coordinated vacancies makes substrate temperature during growth a powerful control knob, as demonstrated by the reduced mid-infrared absorption in SmN grown without passive heating.
  • The roughly 20% cohesive-energy difference between GdN and SmN may bias the composition of grown films, so stoichiometry control may need to account for this thermodynamic preference.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the near-constancy of the exchange field survives at device-relevant thicknesses and temperatures, GdxSm1−xN layers could be stacked to produce a nearly constant spin-splitting profile while varying coercivity, simplifying the design of superconducting spin valves.
  • The strong preference of vacancies for Sm coordination implies a possible self-amplifying defect pattern: a vacancy depletes local Gd and leaves a Sm-rich neighborhood, which lowers the formation energy of subsequent vacancies, potentially leading to vacancy clustering or void formation in Sm-rich films.
  • A direct test of the vacancy claim would be to map the local atomic environment of nitrogen vacancies—for example, with X-ray absorption fine structure or positron annihilation—in films of controlled composition, and check whether the vacancy signal indeed tracks Sm coordination as predicted.
  • The simple spin-ratio argument (5/7) suggests that other rare-earth nitride alloy pairs, chosen for different 4f spin quantum numbers, could be used to dial the exchange splitting across a wider range; the same computational approach could predict those series.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper combines experimental optical spectroscopy and magnetometry with DFT+U band-structure and defect calculations for GdxSm1−xN. The authors report that the measured coercive field varies over orders of magnitude with composition while the calculated conduction-band exchange splitting changes by only ~20%, and they attribute a growing mid-infrared absorption in Sm-rich films to nitrogen vacancies whose formation energy is calculated to be lower near Sm ions. The intended application is superconducting spintronics, where hard/soft magnetic pairs with matched exchange fields would be useful.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and relevant materials-engineering question: whether rare-earth nitride alloys can provide hard/soft magnetic pairs with similar exchange fields for superconducting spintronics. The experimental coercive-field data and the qualitative band-structure trend across the alloy series are valuable, and the defect-formation question is important for thin-film quality and transport. If the quantitative claims were fully supported, this would be a useful contribution to the field. However, the central quantitative claims rest on DFT+U calculations with unreported and experimentally fitted Hubbard parameters, an unreconciled discrepancy between the calculated and measured GdN gap, and a defect table that does not isolate local coordination effects from global composition effects. These issues need to be addressed before the quantitative conclusions can be considered robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II B and §III B] The Hubbard parameters U_f and U_d are not reported; they are taken from refs. [41,42] and were 'guided by recourse to experimental results'. Since the exchange splitting and defect formation energies are DFT+U outputs, the key numerical results (e.g., E_X = 0.65 eV for GdN, Table I) are not reproducible without these values. Moreover, the calculated GdN direct gap of ~0.9 eV (§III B) is substantially smaller than the measured optical gap of the GdN film, ~1.6 eV (§III A), with no reconciliation. If the 5d band positions are not captured quantitatively, the ~20% exchange-splitting variation across the alloy and the defect energetics may not be quantitatively reliable.
  2. [§III D and Table I] The abstract's claim that the vacancy formation energy is significantly reduced at Sm-coordinated sites is not isolated by the data. As stated in §III D, the coordination was 'chosen to reflect the concentration of the host crystal', so local coordination and global composition change together. The only fixed-composition comparisons are the ML/MS pairs, which show no consistent Sm-coordination preference: (4,2) MS is lower by 0.81 eV at x=0.7, (3,3) ML is lower by only 0.06 eV at x=0.48, and (2,4) MS is lower by only 0.08 eV at x=0.33. The across-composition trend is also non-monotonic, with (2,4) energies exceeding those of (3,3). Figure 5 inherits this confound. To support the local-coordination claim, calculations are needed at fixed global composition with different nearest-neighbour coordinations, or an analysis that separates composition and coordination effects.
  3. [§III C] The sentence giving example values appears internally inconsistent: 'with x=0 the coercive field is ~100 Oe and the exchange splitting is 0.65 eV, while for x=0.8 the coercive field is ~5000 Oe and the exchange splitting is 0.6 eV'. This conflicts with the paper's own earlier statement that SmN (x=0) has a coercive field >10 T at 2 K and with the trend described for Figure 3. Please check the x values, axis labels, or units in this sentence and in Figure 3.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§III D] Typo: 'nitrogen vaccines' should read 'nitrogen vacancies'.
  2. [§III B / §III C] The exchange splitting is a calculated quantity, not a directly measured one. The abstract and §III C phrase the ~20% change as a finding; please state explicitly that the exchange-field trend is calculated, to avoid implying direct experimental determination.
  3. [Figure 3] Coercive field (Oe) and exchange splitting (eV) have different units and likely different scales. Please label the two axes clearly and state that the two quantities are not directly comparable, to avoid visually implying a causal or correlational relation.
  4. [§II A] The composition of the optical films was estimated from beam-equivalent pressures rather than from X-ray fluorescence (which was used for the magnetic films). Please state the estimated uncertainty in composition for the optical films.
  5. [Table I] The 'anomalously low' formation energy for the (4,2) MS configuration may reflect a finite-size or strain artifact of the specific supercell. A convergence check with a larger supercell or an explicit discussion of this possibility would strengthen the defect analysis.
  6. [References] Reference [26] is an arXiv preprint; if a peer-reviewed version has appeared, it should be cited instead of or in addition to the arXiv version.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Vacancy 'Sm-adjacent' preference is built into Table I by construction via concentration-locked coordination; the exchange-field comparison itself is not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section III D (Table I, Fig. 5); method statement in Section III D: 'chosen to reflect the concentration of the host crystal']
    "In each case the coordination of the nitrogen vacancy in the doped super-cell was chosen to reflect the concentration of the host crystal ... The general trend for the defect formation energy is that as the Sm coordination of the vacancy site increases the formation energy reduces."

    By construction, the (Gd,Sm) coordination in Table I is locked to the global concentration x, so the columns 'x' and 'Coord. (Gd,Sm)' are collinear for the main sequence. The abstract's claim that the formation energy is 'significantly reduced for vacancy sites adjacent to Sm ions rather than Gd ions' is therefore a restatement of the composition trend already seen in the cohesive energy, not an isolated local-coordination effect. The same-x ML/MS comparisons do not consistently prefer Sm coordination (x=0.48 ML 1.16 eV vs MS 1.22 eV; x=0.33 MS 1.46 eV vs ML 1.54 eV), undercutting the local interpretation. Fig. 5 then uses these concentration-dependent E_f values in a Boltzmann weight p_i = exp(-epsilon_i/kT), so the prediction that essentially all vacancies sit at six-Sm sites is inherite

full rationale

The central exchange-field claim is not circular: the calculated exchange splittings come from DFT band structures for x = 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1 and are compared with measured coercive fields that are external experimental inputs; no parameter is fitted to the coercivity, and the resulting ~20% variation is an independent computational result. Its absolute scale does depend on Hubbard U_f/U_d imported from the authors' prior work (refs. [40]-[42]) and 'guided by recourse to experimental results', but the paper does not exhibit a numeric equivalence that would make the exchange-field trend itself a fitted prediction, so that is a transparency/transferability concern rather than a demonstrated circular step. The genuine circular deficiency is in the vacancy-defect section. Table I was constructed by setting each vacancy coordination equal to the host concentration, making the coordination and composition trends perfectly collinear; the six-Sm row is pure SmN and the six-Gd row is pure GdN. The paper's local-chemistry conclusion ('adjacent to Sm rather than Gd') is thus not isolated from the global composition effect, and the Fig. 5 Boltzmann weighting propagates this confound into the 'essentially all vacancies at six-Sm sites' prediction. This is partial circularity in a secondary claim, while the main exchange-field/composition result retains independent content, hence a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on DFT+U simulations with Hubbard parameters fitted to earlier experiments by the same group, plus experimental interpretation of optical spectra. The free parameters are those U values. Key assumptions include the validity of DFT+U for these correlated insulators, the assignment of the mid-IR absorption to nitrogen vacancies, the Boltzmann weighting of vacancy configurations, and the use of small random supercells to represent the alloy.

free parameters (2)
  • U_f (Hubbard U for Ln 4f states) = not stated (from refs [41,42])
    Controls the position of occupied/unoccupied 4f states; chosen to match experimental spectra of GdN/SmN in prior work; affects exchange splitting and defect energies.
  • U_d (Hubbard U for Ln 5d states) = not stated (from refs [41,42])
    Controls the 5d conduction band positions and spin-splitting; chosen to match experiment; directly affects the exchange splitting values and band gaps.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DFT+U with the chosen U values describes the strongly correlated 4f electrons and 5d conduction states of LnN adequately.
    Section IIB: correlated 4f electrons require treatment beyond LDA; U parameters from refs [40-42].
  • domain assumption The mid-infrared optical absorption feature is a valid indicator of nitrogen vacancy concentration.
    Section IIIA and IIID; based on refs [42,46].
  • standard math Nitrogen vacancy formation energy is correctly given by Ef = E_d - E_p + 1/2 E(N2) (N-rich limit).
    Section IIB, following ref [43]; standard grand-canonical defect formation formula.
  • domain assumption A 54-atom supercell with randomly placed Gd/Sm and one N vacancy represents the alloy at ~3.7% vacancy concentration.
    Section IIB and IIID; random placement; limited coordination configurations considered.
  • domain assumption Vacancy coordination distribution follows Boltzmann weighting p_i ∝ exp(-ε_i/kBT) at growth temperature.
    Section IIID central/right panels; assumes equilibrium during growth.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tuneable magnetic behaviour, electronic structure and nitrogen vacancy formation in Gd$_{x}$Sm$_{1-x}$N." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5GFZAANZ

@misc{pith2026260729472,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tuneable magnetic behaviour, electronic structure and nitrogen vacancy formation in Gd$_x$Sm$_1-x$N},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5GFZAANZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29472}
}
abstract

The rare earth nitrides are the only series of intrinsic ferromagnetic semiconductors where the interplay of spin and unquenched orbital angular momentum provides access to a range of magnetic behaviour. Furthermore, the magnetic properties can be finely tuned through the combination of multiple lanthanide ions in the nitride. Here we present a combined computational and experimental study on the electronic and magnetic properties of Gd$_x$Sm$_{1-x}$N and discuss the effect of cation substitution on the internal exchange field and band structure. We find that as the coercive field of Gd$_x$Sm$_{1-x}$N changes over orders of magnitude via cation substitution the internal exchange field changes by $\sim$20%. Control of these material properties is vital in the field of superconducting spintronics. Finally, motivated by an enhanced concentration of nitrogen vacancies in films with higher Sm content, we investigate computationally the formation of nitrogen vacancy defects in Gd$_x$Sm$_{1-x}$N finding that the formation energy is significantly reduced for vacancy sites adjacent to Sm ions rather than Gd ions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29472 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Optical conductivity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Band structure calculations of Gd [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Black circles: Experimental coercive field of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Left: Probability of each coordination of a vacancy site based on random chance. Centre: Random chance weighted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Integrated optical conductivity spectra from Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A. S. G. Andrae and T. Edler, Challenges6, 117 (2015)

    2015

  2. [2]

    Hirohata, K

    A. Hirohata, K. Yamada, Y. Nakatani, I.-L. Prejbeanu, B. Di´ eny, P. Pirro, and B. Hillebrands, Journal of Mag- netism and Magnetic Materials509, 166711 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    O. A. Mukhanov, IEEE Transactions on Applied Super- conductivity21, 760 (2011)

    2011

  4. [4]

    S. K. Tolpygo, D. Yohannes, R. T. Hunt, J. A. Vi- valda, D. Donnelly, D. Amparo, and A. F. Kirichenko, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity17, 946 (2007)

    2007

  5. [5]

    Linder and J

    J. Linder and J. W. A. Robinson, Nature Physics11, 307–315 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    I. I. Soloviev, N. V. Klenov, S. V. Bakurskiy, M. Y. Kupriyanov, A. L. Gudkov, and A. S. Sidorenko, Beil- stein Journal of Nanotechnology8, 2689 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    Shamiul, H

    A. Shamiul, H. Md Shafayat, S. Srivatsa Rangachar, and A. Ahmedullah, Nature Electronics6, 185–198 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Hulliger, inNon-Metallic Compounds - II, Handbook on the Physics and Chemistry of Rare Earths, Vol

    F. Hulliger, inNon-Metallic Compounds - II, Handbook on the Physics and Chemistry of Rare Earths, Vol. 4 (Elsevier, 1979) pp. 153 – 236

    1979

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Natali, B

    F. Natali, B. J. Ruck, N. O. V. Plank, H. J. Trodahl, S. Granville, C. Meyer, and W. R. L. Lambrecht, Prog. Mater. Sci.58, 1316 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Larson, W

    P. Larson, W. R. L. Lambrecht, A. Chantis, and M. van- Schilfgaarde, Phys. Rev. B75, 045114 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    Granville, B

    S. Granville, B. J. Ruck, F. Budde, A. Koo, D. J. Pringle, F. Kuchler, A. R. H. Preston, D. H. Housden, N. Lund, A. Bittar, G. V. M. Williams, and H. J. Trodahl, Phys. Rev. B73, 235335 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    Ludbrook, I

    B. Ludbrook, I. Farrell, M. K¨ ubel, B. Ruck, A. Preston, J. Trodahl, L. Ranno, R. Reeves, and S. Durbin, Journal of Applied Physics106, 063910 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    Meyer, B

    C. Meyer, B. J. Ruck, J. Zhong, S. Granville, A. R. H. Preston, G. V. M. Williams, and H. J. Trodahl, Phys. Rev. B78, 174406 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    J. F. McNulty, B. J. Ruck, and H. J. Trodahl, Phys. Rev. B93, 054413 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Anton, B

    E.-M. Anton, B. J. Ruck, C. Meyer, F. Natali, H. War- ring, F. Wilhelm, A. Rogalev, V. N. Antonov, and H. J. Trodahl, Phys. Rev. B87, 134414 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    W. F. Holmes-Hewett, F. H. Ullstad, B. J. Ruck, F. Na- tali, and H. J. Trodahl, Phys. Rev. B98, 235201 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    J. D. Miller, J. F. McNulty, B. J. Ruck, M. A. Khalfioui, S. V´ ezian, M. Suzuki, H. Osawa, N. Kawamura, and H. J. Trodahl, Phys. Rev. B106, 174432 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    J. D. Miller, H. J. Trodahl, M. Al Khalfioui, S. V´ ezian, and B. J. Ruck, Applied Physics Letters122(2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    C. Pot, W. F. Holmes-Hewett, E.-M. Anton, J. D. Miller, B. J. Ruck, and H. J. Trodahl, Appl. Phys. Lett.13 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Galler and L

    A. Galler and L. V. Pourovskii, New J. Phys.24, 043039 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Senapati, M

    K. Senapati, M. G. Blamire, and Z. H. Barber, Nat. Mater.10, 849 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    A. Pal, K. Senapati, Z. H. Barber, and M. G. Blamire, Advanced Materials25, 5581 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    Massarotti, A.Pal, G

    D. Massarotti, A.Pal, G. Rotoli, L. Longobardi, M. Blamire, and F. Tafuri, Nature Communications6, 7376 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Caruso, D

    R. Caruso, D. Massarotti, G. Campagnano, A. Pal, H. G. Ahmad, P. Lucignano, M. Eschrig, M. G. Blamire, and F. Tafuri, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 047002 (2019). 9

    2019

  17. [25]

    J. P. Cascales, Y. Takamura, G. M. Stephen, D. Heiman, F. S. Bergeret, and J. S. Moodera, Applied Physics Let- ters114, 022601 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    P. K. Sharma, S. Banerjee, B. Dutta, V. Singhal, P. Banerjee, H. K. Pal, and A. Pal, (2023), arXiv:2312.04650 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    H. G. Ahmad, R. Caruso, A. Pal, G. Rotoli, G. P. Pepe, M. G. Blamire, F. Tafuri, and D. Massarotti, Phys. Rev. Appl.13, 014017 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    H. G. Ahmad, M. Minutillo, R. Capecelatro, A. Pal, R. Caruso, G. Passarelli, M. G. Blamire, F. Tafuri, P. Lu- cignano, and D. Massarotti, Communications Physics5 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    H. G. Ahmad, V. Brosco, A. Miano, L. Di Palma, M. Arzeo, D. Montemurro, P. Lucignano, G. P. Pepe, F. Tafuri, R. Fazio, and D. Massarotti, Phys. Rev. B 105, 214522 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    P. K. Muduli, A. Pal, and M. G. Blamire, Phys. Rev. B 89, 094414 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    B. Ruck, F. Natali, N. Plank, B. Do Le, M. Azeem, M. Alfheid, C. Meyer, and H. Trodahl, Physica B: Con- densed Matter407, 2954 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    J. Chan, S. V´ ezian, J. Trodahl, M. Khalfioui, B. Dami- lano, and F. Natali, Cryst. Growth Des16(2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Anton, E

    E.-M. Anton, E. Trewick, W. F. Holmes-Hewett, J. R. Chan, J. F. McNulty, T. Butler, B. J. Ruck, and F. Na- tali, Applied Physics Letters123, 262401 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Ehrenreich, H

    H. Ehrenreich, H. R. Philipp, and B. Segall, Phys. Rev. 132, 1918 (1963)

    1918

  27. [35]

    A. B. Kuzmenko, Rev. Sci. Instrum.76, 083108 (2005)

    2005

  28. [36]

    W. F. Holmes-Hewett, R. G. Buckley, B. J. Ruck, F. Na- tali, and H. J. Trodahl, Phys. Rev. B99, 205131 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Giannozziet al., J

    P. Giannozziet al., J. Phys.: Condens. Matter21, 395502 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    Cococcioni and S

    M. Cococcioni and S. de Gironcoli, Phys. Rev. B71, 035105 (2005)

    2005

  31. [39]

    Topsakal and R

    M. Topsakal and R. Wentzcovitch, Comput. Mater. Sci. 95, 263 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    Larson and W

    P. Larson and W. R. L. Lambrecht, Phys. Rev. B74, 085108 (2006)

    2006

  33. [41]

    W. F. Holmes-Hewett, Phys. Rev. B104, 075124 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    W. F. Holmes-Hewett, K. V. Koughnet, J. D. Miller, E. X. M. Trewick, B. J. Ruck, H. J. Trodahl, and R. G. Buckley, Sci Rep13(2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Punya, T

    A. Punya, T. Cheiwchanchamnangij, A. Thiess, and W. Lambrecht, MRS Proceedings1290(2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    H. J. Trodahl, A. R. H. Preston, J. Zhong, B. J. Ruck, N. M. Strickland, C. Mitra, and W. R. L. Lambrecht, Phys. Rev. B76, 085211 (2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    G. L. S. Vilela, G. M. Stephen, X. Gratens, G. D. Gal- gano, Y. Hou, Y. Takamura, D. Heiman, A. B. Hen- riques, G. Berera, and J. S. Moodera, Phys. Rev. B 109, L060401 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    W. F. Holmes-Hewett, C. Pot, R. G. Buckley, A. Koo, B. J. Ruck, F. Natali, A. Shaib, J. D. Miller, and H. J. Trodahl, Appl. Phys. Lett.117, 222409 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Y. M. Blanter and F. W. J. Hekking, Phys. Rev. B69, 024525 (2004)

    2004

  40. [48]

    E. C. Gingrich, B. M. Niedzielski, J. A. Glick, Y. Wang, D. L. Miller, R. Loloee, W. P. P. Jr, and N. O. Birge, Nature Physics12, 564–567 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    Maity, H

    T. Maity, H. J. Trodahl, F. Natali, B. J. Ruck, and S. V´ ezian, Phys. Rev. Materials2, 014405 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    H. J. Trodahl, F. Natali, B. J. Ruck, and W. R. L. Lambrecht, Phys. Rev. B96, 115309 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.