Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Ab initio High-Pressure Phase Diagrams of Al-Mg Alloys in the Low Solute Concentration Limit

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper predicts that in Mg-rich Al-Mg alloys, aluminium switches from favouring the liquid at ambient pressure to favouring the solid above roughly 60 GPa, inverting the slope of the phase boundary as the Mg host changes from hcp to bcc.

desk verdict Careful and internally consistent PCFC/CPDS calculation of dilute Al-Mg up to 150 GPa; the predicted high-pressure reversal of Al partitioning is real within PBE but sits on a ~0.03 eV energy difference, so it needs functional validation before being taken as quantitative. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02225 v1 pith:YAWD3TXQ submitted 2026-08-03 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Shambhu Bhandari Sharma , Shailesh Mehta , Dario Alfè This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 62.50.-p64.70.D64.75.-g
keywords high-pressurephasediagramsAl-Mgalloysdilutesolutelimitpartitioningreversalhcp-bcctransitionabinitiothermodynamicsplanetaryinteriors
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 tries to establish the full dilute-limit Al-Mg phase diagram from ambient conditions to 150 GPa using only density-functional theory, without empirical input. It finds that the pure melting curves of Al and Mg match experiment, and that the binary diagram splits into two asymmetric behaviours. The striking claim is that on the Mg-rich side, aluminium changes from being a liquid-loving impurity at ambient pressure to a solid-loving impurity above about 60 GPa, because the Mg host switches from hcp to bcc. This flips the phase-boundary slopes, which would change how Al is sequestered during planetary crystallisation. If correct, it means extreme pressure can reverse the chemical partitioning of an alloy component in a way that ambient-pressure data would never predict.

What carries the argument

The central quantity is the dilute-limit excess chemical potential difference Δμ_ls_X = μ†l_X − μ†s_X. Its sign decides whether the solute favours the liquid (negative) or the solid (positive). The paper computes it by thermodynamic integration that couples the pure solvent to a single-solute-substituted system, using a two-endpoint perturbative estimator. This difference, combined with the pure-solvent melting curve and entropy of fusion from the free-energy-corrected coexistence approach, yields the solidus and liquidus through the dilute-solution phase-equilibrium relations.

What would settle it

Measure the melting temperature of Mg with about 1 at.% Al at 60-90 GPa: the predicted upward-sloping solidus means Al addition raises the melting point, while the opposite sign would mean no reversal. Alternatively, recompute the excess chemical-potential difference with a higher-rung exchange-correlation functional; if the sign of the difference reverts, the topological inversion is an artefact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that in dilute Al-Mg alloys, the direction of solute partitioning reverses with pressure on the Mg-rich side: at ambient pressure Al favours the liquid, but above about 60 GPa—where the Mg host transforms from hcp to bcc—Al favours the solid. Because the solidus and liquidus slopes are set by the sign of the excess chemical-potential difference, this reversal turns the Mg-rich coexistence field from a downward-sloping to an upward-sloping phase boundary. The paper further claims that on the Al-rich side Mg always favours the liquid, with a preference that strengthens monotonically and a partition coefficient that saturates near 0.7.

Load-bearing premise

The reversal hinges on the tiny (few tenths of an eV) difference between the solid and liquid excess chemical potentials of Al in Mg at high pressure, and that difference is computed with an approximate exchange-correlation functional whose error at 60-150 GPa and thousands of kelvin has not been measured; a shift of about 0.1 eV could move or erase the predicted reversal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Above roughly 60 GPa, the Mg-rich solidus and liquidus slope upward with Al content, so adding Al raises the melting temperature instead of lowering it.
  • Aluminium partitions into solid bcc Mg rather than the coexisting melt, so during crystallisation of Mg-rich interiors Al is incorporated into the growing solid.
  • On the Al-rich side, Mg remains liquid-favouring at all pressures, with the partition coefficient saturating near 0.7 at high pressure.
  • The hcp-bcc transition of Mg acts as a structural switch: no such reversal appears on the Al-rich side because fcc Al does not transform in this pressure range.
  • The computed ambient-pressure phase boundaries match available experiments, providing a check on the method before extrapolating to high pressure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The structural-gating mechanism suggests other solutes with strong bonding in bcc Mg might also reverse partitioning near the hcp-bcc boundary; aluminium is not necessarily unique.
  • The predicted reversal could be tested by measuring the melting-point shift of dilute Mg-Al alloys in a diamond-anvil cell at 60-90 GPa, where the sign of the solidus slope is the observable signature.
  • If correct, the reversal implies that Al in Mg-rich rocky or icy planetary mantles is not expelled into melts during differentiation but retained in the solid, changing element stratification models.
  • Because the driving difference is only a few tenths of an eV, the reversal pressure is sensitive to the exchange-correlation functional; benchmarking with a more accurate functional would bracket the uncertainty.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies a two-stage ab initio framework (pure-solvent melting via coexistence with free-energy correction, followed by dilute-solute excess chemical potentials via thermodynamic integration) to construct the dilute-limit Al–Mg phase diagram from 0 to 150 GPa. Pure fcc Al and hcp/bcc Mg melting curves, the Mg hcp–bcc boundary, and the binary solidus/liquidus at both compositional extremes are reported. The central claim is that on the Mg-rich side Al partitions into the liquid at ambient pressure but reverses to solid-favouring above ~60 GPa, inverting the sign of the coexistence-field slope as the Mg host becomes bcc. The paper validates against ambient-pressure experimental data of Murray [22] and reports good agreement of pure melting curves with experiments and prior theory.

Significance. If the central reversal is correct, the paper would provide a concrete, physically motivated example of pressure- and structure-controlled partitioning reversal with implications for planetary differentiation. The methodology is systematic and internally consistent: the two-EAM-potential strategy gives mutual validation in the Al melting curve, the ambient benchmarks against Murray are excellent, and the dilute-limit thermodynamic relations are standard. The claim is falsifiable in the sense that it rests on directly computed excess chemical potentials. The main value is the prediction itself; the main weakness is that the prediction hinges on small energy differences that are not benchmarked against higher-rung functionals or high-pressure experiments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.B.2, Fig. 4] The central reversal is carried by the magnitude of Δμ^ls_Al. At 60 GPa, k=1.12 and T_m=2823 K give Δμ^ls_Al ≈ k_B T ln k ≈ +0.025 eV; at 90 GPa, k=1.28 gives only ≈ +0.07 eV. All DFT/AIMD uses PBE (Sec. II.C), with no cross-check against a higher-rung functional or against any high-pressure experimental partitioning data. PBE errors in solid–liquid chemical-potential differences at 60–150 GPa and 2800–4000 K are plausibly of order 0.1 eV, an order of magnitude larger than the 60 GPa signal. The ambient Murray validation constrains only Δμ at 0 GPa and is silent where the reversal occurs. This is the most load-bearing vulnerability; a concrete test would be a PBE0/HSE or RPA calculation at 60 and 90 GPa for the solid and liquid excess chemical potentials, or an experimental high-P constraint on k.
  2. [Section III.B.2, first paragraph and Fig. 4] The claim that the reversal is 'structurally gated by the hcp–bcc transition' is not directly demonstrated. On the Mg-rich side, the only hcp point is at 0 GPa; the 60, 90, and 150 GPa points are all bcc. The pressure and the structural change are therefore fully confounded. A metastable hcp simulation at, say, 60 GPa (with the hcp lattice constrained) would separate the structural effect from the pressure effect. Without it, the conclusion that the host structural transition is the cause of the reversal is an interpretation rather than a result of the calculations.
  3. [Eqs. (5)–(7) and Fig. 5] The two-endpoint perturbative TI scheme relies on the linear or piecewise-linear approximation of ⟨ΔU⟩_λ, validated only by the endpoint linear approximations in Fig. 5. No intermediate-λ points are computed, so the asserted linearity is not directly verified; the agreement between the λ=0 and λ=1 anchored lines is necessary but not sufficient if the true integrand has a symmetric curvature. Given that the reversal is a few hundredths of an eV, a systematic TI error of even 0.02–0.03 eV could shift the crossing pressure noticeably. A single test at an intermediate λ (e.g., λ=0.5) at 60 GPa for the Mg-rich solid would provide direct evidence that the integration error is below the signal.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section III.B.3] The abstract says the reversal occurs 'above ~60 GPa', while the text in Section III.B.2 says Δμ^ls_Al 'crosses zero around 50 GPa' and Fig. 6 already shows k=1.12 at 60 GPa. Please make the crossing pressure and the 'reversal fully developed' language consistent.
  2. [Fig. 5, caption] The axis label appears as 'U U (eV)', likely a typo for '⟨ΔU⟩_λ − Ū (eV)'. Also the figure shows Ū and F values in many panels; the meaning of these labels is not explained in the caption and should be defined.
  3. [Sec. II.B, Eqs. (6)–(7)] The equations are cited as 'eq. 7, and 6' in the text; please cite them in order (Eqs. (6) and (7)). Minor rephrasing would improve readability.
  4. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (1)] The notation ΔG^ls(T_m^ref) is used before S_ls_ref is defined; a sentence connecting these symbols would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Mg-rich reversal is a computed sign change in the AIMD excess chemical potential, not an input or fit.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The pure-solvent melting curves are obtained with the PCFC approach: EAM reference potentials are fitted to DFT data, but the final melting temperatures are reweighted to DFT through the perturbative free-energy correction of Eqs. (1)-(3), not set by the fit. The Mg hcp-bcc boundary is explicitly recomputed here by quasiharmonic DFT ('The phase boundary is located where the two Gibbs free energies are equal'), with the Mehta et al. citation used only as a methodological precedent. The central Mg-rich quantity Δμ^ls_Al is produced by independent AIMD thermodynamic-integration calculations on pure and single-substituted systems, Eqs. (8)-(10), and the partition coefficient in Eq. (5) is then a thermodynamic consequence of that computed Δμ. The sign reversal above ~60 GPa is therefore an output of the AIMD calculations, not an input or a renamed experimental pattern. The ambient-pressure agreement with the Murray experimental data is an external benchmark, not a fitting target. The skeptic's concern about the small magnitude of Δμ relative to unbenchmarked PBE errors is a legitimate accuracy/correctness risk, but it is not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or entities. Its physical predictions rest on DFT (PBE), the quasiharmonic approximation, dilute-solution thermodynamics, and the self-cited PCFC/CPDS framework; the EAM potentials are fitted reference systems whose effect is intended to be removed by free-energy correction.

free parameters (6)
  • EAMfcc_low parameters = n=6.9025, m=3.6265, eps=0.1558 eV, a=3.2523 A, C=9.9562
    Fitted to DFT energies/pressures from AIMD; used as reference potential for PCFC coexistence simulations at low pressure.
  • EAMfcc_high parameters = n=6.4638, m=2.7634, eps=0.2663 eV, a=3.0441 A, C=10.2388
    Fitted to DFT energies/pressures at high pressure; used as second fcc reference potential.
  • EAMhcp_low parameters = n=7.680, m=4.105, eps=0.0950 eV, a=3.604 A, C=11.918
    Fitted to DFT data for hcp Mg at low pressure; used for hcp Mg coexistence simulations.
  • EAMhcp_high parameters = n=7.965, m=5.892, eps=0.0150 eV, a=3.919 A, C=11.449
    Fitted to DFT data for hcp Mg at high pressure; second hcp reference potential.
  • EAMbcc_low parameters = n=8.475, m=5.734, eps=0.0666 eV, a=3.489 A, C=11.906
    Fitted to DFT data for bcc Mg at intermediate pressure; used for bcc Mg coexistence simulations.
  • EAMbcc_high parameters = n=8.529, m=5.909, eps=0.0111 eV, a=3.875 A, C=11.497
    Fitted to DFT data for bcc Mg at high pressure; second bcc reference potential.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption PBE-GGA exchange-correlation functional gives accurate total energies and free-energy differences for Al and Mg across 0-150 GPa and up to ~5000 K.
    Invoked in Sec. II.C; all DFT/AIMD uses PBE. The sign of Delta-mu_ls at reversal depends on differences of ~0.1 eV between mu_s and mu_l; PBE errors at high P/T are not quantified in the paper.
  • domain assumption Quasiharmonic approximation with an effective Einstein model reliably locates the Mg hcp-bcc boundary up to the triple point.
    Used in Sec. II.A.a and III.A.2.a. At temperatures near melting, anharmonic contributions can bias the free-energy difference.
  • domain assumption Dilute-solution relations Eqs. (4)-(7) remain accurate up to 6 at.% solute.
    Formally exact at c->0; validated against Murray at ambient 0-6 at.%, but high-pressure accuracy of the linearization is not independently checked.
  • ad hoc to paper Two-endpoint perturbative thermodynamic integration with linear/piecewise-linear integrand is accurate for single-solute substitution.
    Sec. II.B.a and Fig. 5; the method avoids lambda simulations. The paper's own Fig. 5 supports linearity, but this is an internal diagnostic, not a formal proof.
  • domain assumption Symmetry-reduced k-point grids are valid because configuration-averaged solid/liquid recover cubic symmetry.
    Sec. II.C; reduces cost for CPDS single-point energies. For liquid configurations the full cubic symmetry is only approximate.
  • domain assumption EAM reference potentials plus first-order free-energy correction accurately reproduce DFT melting temperatures when transferability degrades.
    PCFC method from Ref [19]; Fig. 2 shows convergence between low/high potentials, but the correction is only to first/second order.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ab initio High-Pressure Phase Diagrams of Al-Mg Alloys in the Low Solute Concentration Limit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YAWD3TXQ

@misc{pith2026260802225,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ab initio High-Pressure Phase Diagrams of Al-Mg Alloys in the Low Solute Concentration Limit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YAWD3TXQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02225}
}
read the original abstract

Binary alloy phase diagrams at high pressure are essential for understanding solidification and chemical partitioning in both engineered materials and planetary interiors, yet their experimental determination becomes increasingly challenging under extreme conditions. We apply a fully ab initio approach [J. Chem. Phys. 162, 184502 (2025)], based on density-functional theory, to compute the dilute-limit phase diagram of the Al-Mg system from ambient conditions up to 150 GPa. As a first step, we calculate the melting curves of pure fcc Al and pure hcp/bcc Mg, including the hcp-bcc phase boundary and triple point of Mg, all of which agree closely with available experimental data. The binary phase diagram is then constructed at both compositional extremes. On the Al-rich side, Mg consistently favours the liquid throughout the entire pressure range, with this preference strengthening monotonically under compression. On the Mg-rich side, Al partitions preferentially into the liquid at ambient pressure but undergoes a complete reversal above ~60 GPa, becoming solid-favouring as the Mg host transitions from hcp to bcc. This pressure-driven reversal inverts the topology of the Mg-rich coexistence field from a conventional downward-sloping to an upward-sloping phase boundary, and has direct implications for models of planetary differentiation and interior chemical stratification.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02225 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Computational workflow for computing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (e–f). The computed transition pressure at 300 K is 49.84 GPa, in excellent agreement with the experimental value of 50 ± 6 GPa [44] and the first-principles predic￾tion of Mehta et al. [26]. The boundary carries a negative Clapeyron slope: the transition pressure decreases with increasing temperature, reflecting the higher vibrational entropy of the more open bcc structure, which becomes progressively stabilised re… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. AIMD trajectory diagnostics at each pressure. Rows (a)–(d): Al-rich limit (Mg solute in Al) at 0, 54, 100, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Pressure evolution of the excess chemical potentials [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Perturbative TI integrand [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references

  1. [22]

    Hirose, B

    K. Hirose, B. Wood, and L. Voˇ cadlo, Nature Reviews Earth & Environment2, 645 (2021)

    2021

  2. [1]

    Under compression it undergoes structural transitions to hcp at ∼180 GPa and subsequently to bcc at∼370 GPa [36– 38], both well beyond the pressure range of interest

    Melting Curve of fcc Al Aluminium crystallises in the fcc structure at ambient conditions, with a melting point of 933 K [35]. Under compression it undergoes structural transitions to hcp at ∼180 GPa and subsequently to bcc at∼370 GPa [36– 38], both well beyond the pressure range of interest. The fcc phase therefore governs the melting behaviour of Al thr...

  3. [2]

    Since both solid phases are present within the pressure range of interest, their melting curves and the hcp–bcc phase boundary are established independently

    Melting Curves of hcp and bcc Mg Magnesium crystallises in the hcp structure at ambient conditions and undergoes a pressure-induced transition to bcc at∼50 GPa at room temperature [44, 45]. Since both solid phases are present within the pressure range of interest, their melting curves and the hcp–bcc phase boundary are established independently. a. hcp–bc...

    2002

  4. [3]

    Configuration Sampling On the Al-rich side, AIMD simulations are performed on 108-atom (3×3×3 fcc) supercells in the NVT en- semble at four pressures along theab initioAl melting curve: 0, 54, 100, and 149 GPa, at the corresponding melting temperatures of 930, 3204, 4277, and 5056 K. On the Mg-rich side, hcp supercells (5×5×5, 250 atoms) are used at 0 GPa...

  5. [4]

    Chemical Potential Estimation The validity of the two-endpoint perturbative scheme is first assessed through the TI integrand⟨∆U⟩ λ − ¯U, shown as a function ofλfor both compositional lim- its in Fig. 5. Subtracting the simple average ¯Ucentres the ordinate so that a perfectly linear integrand appears as two coincident lines passing through zero; any depa...

  6. [5]

    7, and 6) self-consistently at each pressure

    Phase Diagram WithT 0 m(P), ∆µ ls X (P) and ∆s 0 A(P) established, the solidus and liquidus at both compositional extremes are constructed by solving the dilute-solution phase- equilibrium relations (eq. 7, and 6) self-consistently at each pressure. On the Al-rich side, the resulting phase diagrams are shown in the top row of Fig. 6. At ambient pressure, ...

  7. [6]

    D. R. Gaskell and D. E. Laughlin,Introduction to the Thermodynamics of Materials(CRC press, 2024)

    2024

  8. [7]

    Okamoto, M

    H. Okamoto, M. E. Schlesinger, and E. M. Mueller,Alloy phase diagrams(Asm International, 2016)

    2016

Show all 58 references
  1. [8]

    Sch¨ on and M

    J. Sch¨ on and M. Jansen, International Journal of Mate- rials Research100, 135 (2009)

    2009

  2. [9]

    Enoki, S

    M. Enoki, S. Minamoto, I. Ohnuma, T. Abe, and H. Ohtani, ISIJ International63, 407 (2023). 12

    2023

  3. [10]

    F. C. Campbell, ed.,Phase Diagrams: Understanding the Basics(ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 2012) introductory reference on alloy phase diagrams, thermo- dynamics, and phase fields

    2012

  4. [11]

    Zhao,Methods for Phase Diagram Determination (Elsevier, 2007)

    J.-C. Zhao,Methods for Phase Diagram Determination (Elsevier, 2007)

    2007

  5. [12]

    Lukas, S

    H. Lukas, S. G. Fries, and B. Sundman,Computational thermodynamics: the Calphad method(Cambridge uni- versity press, 2007)

    2007

  6. [13]

    Saunders and A

    N. Saunders and A. P. Miodownik,CALPHAD (calcula- tion of phase diagrams): a comprehensive guide, Vol. 1 (Elsevier, 1998)

    1998

  7. [14]

    Zipoli, A

    F. Zipoli, A. Asahara, and T. Kanehira, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.61, 7412 (2022)

    2022

  8. [15]

    G. Wang, C. Wang, X. Zhang, Z. Li, J. Zhou, and Z. Sun, Iscience27(2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    S. Zhu, D. Sariturk, and R. Arroyave, npj Comput. Mater.11, 340 (2025)

    2025

  10. [17]

    van de Walle and G

    A. van de Walle and G. Ceder, J. Phase Equilibria23, 348 (2002)

    2002

  11. [18]

    S. Liu, G. Esteban-Manzanares, and J. LLorca, Metal- lurgical and Materials Transactions A52, 4675 (2021)

    2021

  12. [19]

    D. Alfe, M. Gillan, and G. Price, The Journal of chemical physics116, 7127 (2002)

    2002

  13. [20]

    Alf` e, M

    D. Alf` e, M. Gillan, and G. D. Price, Earth and Planetary Science Letters195, 91 (2002)

    2002

  14. [21]

    Chipman, Metallurgical Transactions3, 55 (1972)

    J. Chipman, Metallurgical Transactions3, 55 (1972)

    1972

  15. [23]

    Zhang, G

    Z. Zhang, G. Cs´ anyi, D. Alf` e, Y. Zhang, J. Li, and J. Liu, Geophysical Research Letters49, e2021GL096749 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    S. B. Sharma, S. Mehta, and D. Alf` e, The Journal of Chemical Physics162(2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Mendelev, M

    M. Mendelev, M. Asta, M. Rahman, and J. Hoyt, Phil. Mag.89, 3269 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    M. P. Liu, H. J. Roven, M. Y. Murashkin, R. Z. Valiev, A. Kilmametov, Z. Zhang, and Y. Yu, J. Mater. Sci.48, 4681 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    J. L. Murray, J. Phase Equilib.3, 60 (1982)

    1982

  20. [28]

    M. S. Daw and M. I. Baskes, Phys. Rev. Lett.50, 1285 (1983)

    1983

  21. [29]

    M. P. Allen and D. J. Tildesley,Computer simulation of liquids(Oxford university press, 2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Alf` e, M

    D. Alf` e, M. Gillan, and G. Price, J. Chem. Phys.116, 6170 (2002)

    2002

  23. [31]

    Mehta, G

    S. Mehta, G. Price, and D. Alf` e, The Journal of chemical physics125(2006)

    2006

  24. [32]

    Alf` e, Computer Physics Communications180, 2622 (2009)

    D. Alf` e, Computer Physics Communications180, 2622 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm”uller, Physical Review B54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  26. [34]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Physical review b59, 1758 (1999)

    1999

  27. [35]

    P. E. Bl”ochl, Physical Review B50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  28. [36]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Physical re- view letters77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  29. [37]

    N. D. Mermin, Physical Review137, A1441 (1965)

    1965

  30. [38]

    Nos´ e, Molecular physics52, 255 (1984)

    S. Nos´ e, Molecular physics52, 255 (1984)

    1984

  31. [39]

    H. J. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, Physical review B13, 5188 (1976)

    1976

  32. [40]

    Voˇ cadlo and D

    L. Voˇ cadlo and D. Alf` e, Physical Review B65, 214105 (2002)

    2002

  33. [41]

    Polsin, D

    D. Polsin, D. Fratanduono, J. Rygg, A. Lazicki, R. Smith, J. Eggert, M. Gregor, B. Henderson, X. Gong, J. Delet- trez,et al., Physics of Plasmas25(2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Akahama, M

    Y. Akahama, M. Nishimura, K. Kinoshita, H. Kawamura, and Y. Ohishi, Physical review letters96, 045505 (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    Y. B. Kudasov, O. Surdin, A. Korshunov, V. Pavlov, N. Frolova, and R. Kuzin, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics117, 664 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    Bouchet, F

    J. Bouchet, F. Bottin, G. Jomard, and G. Z´ erah, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics80, 094102 (2009)

    2009

  37. [45]

    Boehler and M

    R. Boehler and M. Ross, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.153, 223 (1997)

    1997

  38. [46]

    H¨ anstr¨ om and P

    A. H¨ anstr¨ om and P. Lazor, J. Alloys Compd.305, 209 (2000)

    2000

  39. [47]

    Errandonea, J

    D. Errandonea, J. Appl. Phys.108(2010)

    2010

  40. [48]

    Homan, R

    C. Homan, R. MacCrone, and E. Whalley, Parts I, II, III (1984)

    1984

  41. [49]

    Olijnyk and W

    H. Olijnyk and W. Holzapfel, Physical Review B31, 4682 (1985)

    1985

  42. [50]

    G. W. Stinton, S. G. MacLeod, H. Cynn, D. Errandonea, W. J. Evans, J. E. Proctor, Y. Meng, and M. I. McMa- hon, Physical Review B90, 134105 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    C. Cui, J. Xian, H. Liu, F. Tian, X. Gao, and H. Song, Journal of Applied Physics131(2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    V. G. Fletcher, A. P. Bart´ ok, and L. B. P´ artay, npj Com- putational Materials (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    Hong and A

    Q.-J. Hong and A. Van De Walle, Physical Review B 100, 140102 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    J. E. Sansonetti and W. C. Martin, Journal of physical and chemical reference data34, 1559 (2005)

    2005

  47. [55]

    J. F. Cannon, Journal of Physical and Chemical Refer- ence Data3, 781 (1974)

    1974

  48. [56]

    Chase Jr, C

    M. Chase Jr, C. Davies, J. Downey Jr, D. Frurip, R. Mc- Donald, and A. Syverud, Journal of physical and chemi- cal reference data14, 927 (1985)

    1985

  49. [57]

    Courac, Y

    A. Courac, Y. Le Godec, V. L. Solozhenko, N. Guig- not, and W. A. Crichton, Journal of Applied Physics127 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    M. W. Chaseet al., Journal of physical and chemical reference data28, 1951 (1998). UK Ministry of Defence©Crown owned copyright 2026/A WE

    1951

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.