Antiferromagnetic Phases in Zr-Fe-Ge Kagome Systems

Cai-Zhuang Wang; Peter Minch; Shiya Chen; Vladimir Antropov; Wei-Shen Tee; Weiyi Xia; Yang Sun

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Antiferromagnetic Phases in Zr-Fe-Ge Kagome Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read First-principles calculations find long-period antiferromagnetic ground states in Zr-Fe-Ge kagome compounds, overturning earlier ferromagnetic assignments.

desk verdict Solid, clearly written DFT study that corrects the FM assignment for ZrFe6Ge4 and predicts bilayer-AFM ground states in ZrFe6Ge4/5; the collinear-only search is the main caveat, but the paper is honest about it and deserves refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05469 v1 pith:AKFTSQTG submitted 2026-08-05 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Peter Minch , Shiya Chen , Weiyi Xia , Wei-Shen Tee , Yang Sun , Cai-Zhuang Wang , Vladimir Antropov This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords Kagomelatticeantiferromagnetismfirst-principlescalculationmagneticexchangeinteractionslong-periodorderingZrFe6Ge4Fe6Ge5neutronscattering

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 predicts the magnetic ground states of three Zr-Fe-Ge kagome compounds using density functional theory. It finds that ZrFe6Ge6 is an A-type antiferromagnet, matching experiment, while ZrFe6Ge4 and ZrFe6Ge5 order as bilayer antiferromagnets with periods of four and eight magnetic layers. These long-period orders contradict prior computational predictions of simple ferromagnetism in ZrFe6Ge4 and ZrFe6Ge5. If correct, the results explain the anomalously low measured magnetization in these compounds and point to frustrated interlayer exchange as a general feature of this family. The authors call for neutron scattering experiments as the direct test.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by spin-polarized density functional theory on a 1×1×2 supercell large enough to host long-period interlayer ordering, combined with an energy-mapping analysis to an effective Heisenberg model. The Heisenberg fit yields first- and second-neighbor interlayer exchange parameters J, showing ferromagnetic coupling within Fe bilayers and antiferromagnetic coupling across Ge2 and ZrGe2 interlayers. The frustration between these couplings stabilizes the bilayer antiferromagnetic states in ZrFe6Ge4 and ZrFe6Ge5.

What would settle it

Neutron diffraction on ZrFe6Ge4 or ZrFe6Ge5 could falsify the prediction by showing magnetic peaks at the propagation vector of a ferromagnet or of a spin spiral instead of the commensurate wavevector corresponding to the four- or eight-layer antiferromagnetic repeat; a DFT total-energy calculation finding any non-collinear spiral lower in energy than the bilayer antiferromagnet would also falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, within the space of collinear magnetic configurations, the ground state of ZrFe6Ge6 is A-type antiferromagnetic while the ground states of ZrFe6Ge4 and ZrFe6Ge5 are A-type bilayer antiferromagnetic structures. In the bilayer antiferromagnet, spins in each Fe bilayer are aligned ferromagnetically, but neighboring bilayers are coupled antiferromagnetically across intervening Ge-containing layers, producing a magnetic period of four layers in ZrFe6Ge4 and eight layers in ZrFe6Ge5. The prediction contradicts earlier studies that assumed ferromagnetic order in these systems and resolves the apparent conflict with magnetization measurements by removing the net ferromagnetic moment. The authors further find that the intra-layer Fe coupling is strongly ferromagnetic, the interlayer couplings are frustrated by layer spacing and intervening non-magnetic layers, and the local Fe moments behave as robust Heisenberg-type moments whose sizes barely change across magnetic configurations.

Load-bearing premise

The magnetic ground state is assumed to be collinear and to fit within a 1×1×2 supercell, so a lower-energy non-collinear, spin-spiral, or longer-period collinear state would invalidate the prediction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

ZrFe6Ge4 and ZrFe6Ge5 should show no large net ferromagnetic moment in their ground states, directly explaining the low saturation magnetization observed in earlier experiments.
The long-period bilayer antiferromagnetic order should be robust to Ge content, since the same ordering appears in both the Ge4 and Ge5 phases and in related Li- and Sc-based compounds.
The magnetic anisotropy is uniaxial and the magneto-elastic coupling grows as Ge is removed, suggesting that strain or field could tune the magnetic configuration.
Neutron diffraction should observe magnetic Bragg peaks corresponding to the four- and eight-layer magnetic periods, distinguishing these states from simple ferromagnets.

Reading between the lines

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

The search was restricted to collinear configurations in a 1×1×2 supercell; if longer-period collinear states exist beyond this cell, the true ground state could have an even longer repeat than predicted here.
The paper explicitly leaves non-collinear and spin-spiral states unexamined; in related kagome systems such spirals are common, so a non-collinear ground state remains a live alternative.
Because the same magnetic ordering appears in Li- and Sc-based systems with different electron counts, the ordering appears driven more by lattice geometry and interlayer spacing than by electron filling, a hypothesis that could be tested in other substitutions.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: this is not a revolutionary paper, but it is a capable, clearly written DFT study that corrects an earlier FM assignment for ZrFe6Ge4 and gives a testable prediction for the unsynthesized ZrFe6Ge5. The energy differences for the collinear ground states are large (10–48 meV/Fe) and survive an LDA cross-check, which is real evidence.

Where it does well: the GGA/LDA comparison is reassuring; the moments behave like local Heisenberg moments; the LDA+U justification is sensible for Fe kagome systems; and the authors explicitly frame their result as a prediction, pointing to neutron scattering for verification.

Soft spots, in proportion: the search space is restricted to collinear configurations in a 1x1x2 supercell. That is the load-bearing caveat. The competing exchanges in Table IV could in principle stabilize a spin spiral or a longer-period collinear state. I do not think the stress test's claim that this "generically" happens is decisive—the dominant coupling here is the strong AFM J_ZrGe2 with a FM bilayer, which favors the collinear block state—but non-collinear calculations would settle it. The paper's own conclusion concedes exactly this, so the central claim is a prediction, not a proof. The Heisenberg fitting is a mild circularity: the J's are extracted from the same energies they rationalize. That is standard practice and does not undermine the total-energy ground state, which was determined directly. Minor issues: no convergence tests or error bars are reported, and no code or data are provided. For a paper that rests on energy differences, some k-point/cutoff convergence evidence would help.

Who it is for: researchers working on kagome magnets, especially the AT6X4/X5 variants. It resolves a discrepancy with prior FM predictions and gives a concrete experimental target.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. The central result is new, the method is standard but appropriately applied, and the limitations are stated by the authors themselves. A referee should ask for non-collinear or at least longer-period collinear calculations, and for convergence data, but the paper deserves refereeing rather than desk rejection.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports first-principles DFT (GGA and LDA) calculations of the magnetic orderings and electronic structures of three Zr-Fe-Ge kagome compounds: ZrFe6Ge6, ZrFe6Ge5, and ZrFe6Ge4. The central claim is that the collinear magnetic ground state is A-type antiferromagnetic (A-AFM) in ZrFe6Ge6, in agreement with experiment, and bilayer antiferromagnetic (BL-AFM) in ZrFe6Ge5 and ZrFe6Ge4, with periods of 8 and 4 magnetic layers, respectively. The claim is based on total-energy comparisons among FM, A-AFM, BL-AFM, BL'-AFM, and additional collinear configurations in a 1x1x2 supercell, supported by LDA checks, magnetic anisotropy calculations, and an effective Heisenberg model fitted to the configuration energies. The authors also characterize the band structures, density of states, and the metastability of ZrFe6Ge5.

Significance. If the predicted BL-AFM ground states are correct, the work overturns earlier FM assignments for ZrFe6Ge4 and ZrFe6Ge5 and identifies long-period interlayer magnetic ordering as a general feature of the AT6X5/AT6X4 kagome families. This is a concrete, experimentally testable prediction: neutron diffraction could directly verify the 4-layer and 8-layer magnetic periods. The paper has clear strengths: it validates the method against the known A-AFM ground state of ZrFe6Ge6, shows consistency between GGA and LDA for the ordering, and demonstrates that Fe moments are largely local and configuration-independent. The study is also careful in discussing the metastability of ZrFe6Ge5. However, the central ground-state assignment depends on a restricted set of collinear configurations and is explicitly acknowledged by the authors to lack a full non-collinear analysis, which is the main source of uncertainty.

major comments (3)

[Sections II and III.B, Tables I and II] The central claim that BL-AFM is the ground state of ZrFe6Ge4 and ZrFe6Ge5 is established by comparing only FM, A-AFM, BL-AFM, BL'-AFM, and the additional collinear states listed in the Supplemental Material, all computed in a 1x1x2 supercell. This search excludes non-collinear spin spirals and longer-period collinear states along the c-axis. The manuscript's own Section IV concedes that establishing the true range and character of the exchange interactions would require full non-collinear analysis. This is not a merely cosmetic caveat: Table IV gives strongly competing interlayer exchanges (for ZrFe6Ge4, J_(ZrGe2)^(1) = -39.1 meV, J_BL^(1) = +8.3 meV, J_(BL-ZrGe2)^(2) = -4.1 meV), and the uniaxial MAE in Table III is only 0.32 meV/Fe, far too small to suppress exchange-driven canting. The authors should either (a) compute the c-axis spin-spiral dispersion and test longer-period collinear states, or (b) explicitly and consistently restrict the claim to the lowest-energy collinear state within the 1x1x2 cell, in the abstract, main text, and conclusion. As written, the global ground-state assignment is not yet established.
[Section III.C and Supplemental Tables S1-S3] The Heisenberg exchange parameters in Table IV are fitted to the same total-energy differences from which the candidate ground states are selected, and are then used in the text to confirm the interlayer coupling pattern. This is a mild energy-mapping circularity: the direct DFT energy comparison in Table I is the load-bearing evidence, so it is not fatal, but the fitted J values are not an independent confirmation. To make the physical interpretation load-bearing, the authors should either show that the fitted Heisenberg model, solved on a superlattice beyond the finite configuration set, reproduces BL-AFM as the minimum, or explicitly state that the J values are a descriptive summary rather than predictive evidence.
[Section II and Tables I-II] No convergence tests or numerical error bars are reported for the total-energy differences in Tables I and II. The energy differences are large (10-48 meV/Fe for the main ground-state selection), so the central ordering is probably robust to numerical uncertainties. However, two comparisons are numerically close: A-AFM vs BL-AFM in ZrFe6Ge5 differs by 10.53 meV/Fe, and BL-AFM vs BL'-AFM in ZrFe6Ge6 differs by only 0.61 meV/Fe. For these near-degenerate cases, a short convergence statement against k-point spacing and at least one larger supercell would substantially strengthen confidence. Please report these checks or justify why they are unnecessary.

minor comments (5)

[Section II] The VASP code name appears with an internal spacing in the text; please correct the typographical artifact.
[Section III.C] The Supplemental figure showing the additional magnetic configurations (Fig. S1) is not referenced in the main text; please add a cross-reference in the paragraph describing the Heisenberg fitting.
[Abstract and Section III.B] The term A-type is used in an unusual way for the BL-AFM states, which have a period of 4 or 8 magnetic layers rather than the simple two-sublattice A-type structure. Please define the usage at first occurrence to avoid confusion with the standard A-AFM nomenclature.
[Table III] The parenthetical values in the MAE and ΔE_lattice columns are presumably in MJ/m^3, but the unit is stated only in the caption. Add explicit units to the column headers or table entries.
[Section III.C and Supplemental Tables S1-S3] The Heisenberg model is written as -1/2 Σ J_ij m_i m_j with m_i unit vectors, but the conversion from the model energy to the meV/Fe values in Tables S1-S3 is not shown. Please state the normalization convention, the number of Fe atoms per formula unit used for scaling, and how the prefactors are derived from the spin dot products.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Mild energy-mapping circularity in the Heisenberg J fit; the central ground-state prediction is independent DFT.

other [Section III.C (Magnetic Exchange Parameters), Table IV and Supplemental Tables S1-S3]
"Specifically, we fitted an effective Heisenberg model of the form −1/2 Σ_{i,j} J_{i,j} m_i m_j to the different spin configuration energies ... The fitted exchange parameters are shown in Table IV. As expected from the A-AFM ground state in ZrFe6Ge6 and the BL-AFM ground states in ZrFe6Ge5 and ZrFe6Ge4, we find that J(1)_ZrGe2 and J(1)_Ge2 are consistently AFM while J(1)_BL is consistently FM."

The J parameters are obtained by least-squares fitting to the very same total-energy differences (Tables S1-S3) that already determine the ordering of the FM, A-AFM, BL-AFM, and other configurations. The statement that the fitted signs are 'as expected from the A-AFM ground state' is therefore a restatement of the input energies rather than an independent confirmation. The circularity is mild and post hoc: the central BL-AFM/A-AFM ground-state claims come directly from the DFT total energies in Table I, not from the Heisenberg model, so the main prediction does not reduce to the fit.

full rationale

The central ground-state predictions (A-AFM for ZrFe6Ge6, BL-AFM for ZrFe6Ge4 and ZrFe6Ge5) are obtained from direct spin-polarized GGA/LDA total-energy comparisons in a 1x1x2 supercell (Tables I and II), not from the fitted Heisenberg model. The Heisenberg parameters in Table IV are a post-hoc energy mapping: they are least-squares fits to the same configuration energies listed in Tables S1-S3, so their signs and the statement that they are 'as expected' from the ground state do not provide independent confirmation. This is a genuine but mild energy-mapping circularity that does not affect the central claim. The choice of the ZrFe6Ge5 structure comes from the authors' own earlier high-throughput work [19], and the restriction to collinear configurations in a 1x1x2 supercell is an acknowledged limitation (Section IV); both are input/scope assumptions rather than circular reductions. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness-imported-from-authors pattern is present.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are the five Heisenberg exchange couplings fitted to the DFT total energies; these are explanatory rather than load-bearing for the central ground-state claim, which comes from direct total-energy comparisons. The key assumptions are the adequacy of GGA/LDA for Fe kagome magnetism, the restriction to collinear order, the 1x1x2 supercell size, and the assumed crystal structure of ZrFe6Ge5 from the authors' prior work.

free parameters (5)

Heisenberg exchange J(1)_ZrGe2 (across ZrGe2 layer) = -19.4 meV (ZrFe6Ge6), -26.6 (ZrFe6Ge5), -39.1 (ZrFe6Ge4)
Fitted by least-squares to DFT total energies of the collinear configurations in Tables S1-S3; used to interpret the interlayer coupling signs, not to determine the ground-state energy ordering.
Heisenberg exchange J(1)_Ge2 (across Ge2 layer) = -20.0 meV (ZrFe6Ge6), -16.1 (ZrFe6Ge5)
Fitted Heisenberg exchange between Fe layers separated by a Ge2 layer; negative sign indicates AFM coupling in the model.
Heisenberg exchange J(1)_BL (within Fe bilayer) = 9.4 meV (ZrFe6Ge5), 8.3 (ZrFe6Ge4)
Fitted Heisenberg exchange within Fe bilayers; positive sign indicates FM coupling and stabilizes the BL-AFM pattern.
Heisenberg exchange J(2)_BL-ZrGe2 (second neighbor) = 3.2 meV (ZrFe6Ge5), -4.1 (ZrFe6Ge4)
Fitted second-neighbor exchange between Fe layers separated by an Fe layer and a ZrGe2 layer.
Heisenberg exchange J(2)_Ge2-ZrGe2 (second neighbor) = 2.2 meV (ZrFe6Ge6), -2.2 (ZrFe6Ge5)
Fitted second-neighbor exchange between Fe layers separated by Ge2, Fe, and ZrGe2 layers.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption PBE-GGA (and LDA) without Hubbard U accurately describe the magnetic ground state of Fe-based kagome systems.
Invoked in Methods and Results, Section III.B, citing Ref [27]; if false (e.g., strong correlations needed), the energy ordering could change.
domain assumption Collinear magnetic orderings are sufficient to find the ground state; non-collinear states are neglected.
The search only includes FM and AFM collinear configurations; the conclusion admits full non-collinear analysis is needed.
domain assumption A 1x1x2 supercell of the conventional cell is large enough to capture long-period interlayer ordering.
Section II states this supercell is used to capture long-period ordering; if the true period is longer, the predicted ground state is an artifact.
domain assumption The assumed crystal structure of ZrFe6Ge5 (from Ref [19]) is the correct ground-state structure.
No experimental synthesis is known; the magnetic prediction depends on this structural model.
domain assumption The effective Heisenberg model with unit spin vectors and up to second-neighbor layer couplings is adequate to describe the interlayer exchange.
Section III.C; the model is fitted to the DFT energies and then used to confirm the coupling signs.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Antiferromagnetic Phases in Zr-Fe-Ge Kagome Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AKFTSQTG

@misc{pith2026260805469,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Antiferromagnetic Phases in Zr-Fe-Ge Kagome Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AKFTSQTG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05469}
}

read the original abstract

A wide variety of chemical substitutions in ferromagnetic Kagome systems can lead to diverse magnetic phases with electronic structures suitable for topological or quantum material properties. Here, we study the electronic structure and magnetic orderings using first-principles calculations for the magnetic Kagome compounds ZrFe6Ge6, ZrFe6Ge4, and ZrFe6Ge5. For ZrFe6Ge6, the obtained ground-state magnetic structure is A-type antiferromagnetic (AFM), in agreement with existing experiments. We predicted that the magnetic ground states of ZrFe6Ge4 and ZrFe6Ge5 are collinear A-type bilayer AFM structures with long-period ordering that involves a mix of FM and AFM interlayer orientations. The formation of such long-range magnetic structures appears to be a general feature and is not tied to specific substitutions. The magnetic moments in these systems are largely local and only weakly dependent on the magnetic configuration, with magnitudes in good agreement with available experimental estimates. Neutron scattering experiments, which could provide direct verification of these predictions, are therefore of particular importance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05469 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Magnetic structures for the AFM configurations of (a) ZrFe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** As the number of Ge ions in the structure de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Spin-polarized electronic band structures of (a,d) ZrFe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Total and element-projected DOS for (a,d) ZrFe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[1]

Y. Wang, H. Wu, G. T. McCandless, J. Y. Chan, and M. N. Ali, Quantum states and intertwining phases in kagome materials, Nature Reviews Physics5, 635 (2023)

2023
[2]

J.-X. Yin, W. Ma, T. A. Cochran, X. Xu, S. S. Zhang, H.-J. Tien, N. Shumiya, G. Cheng, K. Jiang, B. Lian, et al., Quantum-limit chern topological magnetism in 7 FIG. 3. Spin-polarized electronic band structures of (a,d) ZrFe 6Ge6, (b,e) ZrFe6Ge5, and (c,f) ZrFe 6Ge4 near the Fermi level. Red and blue curves indicate bands calculated with and without spin-...

work page 2020
[3]

Venturini, R

G. Venturini, R. Welter, B. Malaman, and E. Ressouche, Magnetic structure of ymn6ge6 and room temperature magnetic structure of lumn6sn6 obtained from neutron 8 diffraction study, Journal of alloys and compounds200, 51 (1993)

work page 1993
[4]

D. Chen, C. Le, C. Fu, H. Lin, W. Schnelle, Y. Sun, and C. Felser, Large anomalous hall effect in the kagome ferromagnet limn 6 sn 6, Physical Review B103, 144410 (2021)

work page 2021
[5]

B. C. El Idrissi, G. Venturini, and B. Malaman, Crystal structures of rfe6sn6 (r = sc, y, gd-tm, lu) rare-earth iron stannides, Materials Research Bulletin26, 1331 (1991)

work page 1991
[6]

S. Peng, Y. Han, G. Pokharel, J. Shen, Z. Li, M. Hashimoto, D. Lu, B. R. Ortiz, Y. Luo, H. Li,et al., Realizing kagome band structure in two-dimensional kagome surface states of rv 6 sn 6 (r= gd, ho), Physi- cal review letters127, 266401 (2021)

work page 2021
[7]

Y. Hu, X. Wu, Y. Yang, S. Gao, N. C. Plumb, A. P. Schnyder, W. Xie, J. Ma, and M. Shi, Tunable topological dirac surface states and van hove singularities in kagome metal gdv6sn6, Science Advances8, eadd2024 (2022)

work page 2022
[8]

Venturini, R

G. Venturini, R. Welter, and B. Malaman, Crystallo- graphic data and magnetic properties of rt6ge6 com- pounds (r=sc, y, nd, sm, gd-lu; t=mn, fe), Journal of alloys and compounds185, 99 (1992)

work page 1992

Show all 29 references

[9]

Venturini, B

G. Venturini, B. C. El Idrissi, and B. Malaman, Magnetic properties of rmn6sn6 (r= sc, y, gd- tm, lu) compounds with hffe6ge6 type structure, Journal of magnetism and magnetic materials94, 35 (1991)

1991
[10]

M. Li, Q. Wang, G. Wang, Z. Yuan, W. Song, R. Lou, Z. Liu, Y. Huang, Z. Liu, H. Lei,et al., Dirac cone, flat band and saddle point in kagome magnet ymn6sn6, Na- ture communications12, 3129 (2021)

2021
[11]

Mazet, V

T. Mazet, V. Ban, R. Sibille, S. Capelli, and B. Malaman, Magnetic properties of mgfe6ge6, Solid state communica- tions159, 79 (2013)

2013
[12]

Mazet, O

T. Mazet, O. Isnard, and B. Malaman, Neutron diffrac- tion and 57fe m¨ ossbauer study of the hffe6ge6-type rfe6ge6 compounds (r= sc, ti, zr, hf, nb), Solid state com- munications114, 91 (2000)

2000
[13]

Mulder, R

F. Mulder, R. Thiel, J. Brabers, F. De Boer, and K. Buschow, 155gd m¨ ossbauer effect and magnetic prop- erties of gdmn6ge6, Journal of alloys and compounds 190, L29 (1993)

1993
[14]

B. C. El Idrissi, G. Venturini, B. Malaman, and E. Ressouche, Magnetic properties of ndmn6ge6 and smmn6ge6 compounds from susceptibility measurements and neutron diffraction study, Journal of alloys and com- pounds215, 187 (1994)

1994
[15]

N. J. Ghimire, R. L. Dally, L. Poudel, D. Jones, D. Michel, N. T. Magar, M. Bleuel, M. A. McGuire, J. Jiang, J. Mitchell,et al., Competing magnetic phases and fluctuation-driven scalar spin chirality in the kagome metal ymn6sn6, Science Advances6, eabe2680 (2020)

2020
[16]

S. F. Matar, T. Fickenscher, B. Gerke, O. Niehaus, U. C. Rodewald, A. F. Al Alam, N. Ouaini, and R. P¨ ottgen, Chemical bonding in rfe6ge4 (r= li, sc, zr) and luti6sn4 with rhombohedral life6ge4 type structure, Solid State Sciences39, 82 (2015)

2015
[17]

M. A. Kassem, T. Shiotani, H. Ohta, Y. Tabata, T. Waki, and H. Nakamura, A new double-layered kagome anti- ferromagnet scfe6ge4, Solid State Communications385, 115513 (2024)

2024
[18]

Mantravadi, R

A. Mantravadi, R. A. Ribeiro, S. L. Bud’ko, P. C. Can- field, and J. V. Zaikina, Experimental testing of the the- oretically predicted magnetic properties for kagom´ e com- pounds in the li–fe–ge system, Inorganic Chemistry63, 24697 (2024)

2024
[19]

S. Chen, Z. Zhang, V. Antropov, and Y. Sun, Computa- tional prediction of ferromagnetic at 6 x 6 kagome com- pounds, Physical Review B113, 224412 (2026)

2026
[20]

Zhang, K

Z. Zhang, K. D. Belashchenko, X. Su, A. Das, S. L. Bud’ko, P. C. Canfield, and V. Antropov, Competing magnetic phases in li-fe-ge kagome systems, Physical Re- view B112, 224412 (2025)

2025
[21]

Vishina, R

A. Vishina, R. Clulow, D. Hedlund, V. Shtender, P. Svedlindh, M. Sahlberg, O. Eriksson, and H. C. Her- per, M fe6 x 4 system (m= mg, sc, zr; x= al, si, p, ga, ge, in, sn, sb) as possible ‘gap’magnets, Science and technol- ogy of advanced materials26, 2527024 (2025)

2025
[22]

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)

1996
[23]

J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Physical review let- ters77, 3865 (1996)

1996
[24]

Zagorac, H

D. Zagorac, H. M¨ uller, S. Ruehl, J. Zagorac, and S. Rehme, Recent developments in the inorganic crys- tal structure database: theoretical crystal structure data and related features, Applied Crystallography52, 918 (2019)

2019
[25]

W. Sun, A. Holder, B. Orva˜ nanos, E. Arca, A. Zaku- tayev, S. Lany, and G. Ceder, Thermodynamic routes to novel metastable nitrogen-rich nitrides, Chemistry of Materials29, 6936 (2017)

2017
[26]

M. K. Horton, P. Huck, R. X. Yang, J. M. Munro, S. Dwaraknath, A. M. Ganose, R. S. Kingsbury, M. Wen, J. X. Shen, T. S. Mathis,et al., Accelerated data-driven materials science with the materials project, Nature Ma- terials24, 1522 (2025)

2025
[27]

Lin and X

Z.-Z. Lin and X. Chen, Tunable massive dirac fermions in ferromagnetic fe3sn2 kagome lattice, physica status solidi (RRL)–Rapid Research Letters14, 1900705 (2020)

2020
[28]

Zhang, X

H. Zhang, X. Feng, T. Heitmann, A. I. Kolesnikov, M. B. Stone, Y.-M. Lu, and X. Ke, Topological magnon bands in a room-temperature kagome magnet, Physical Review B101, 100405 (2020)

2020
[29]

Sadhukhan, A

B. Sadhukhan, A. Bergman, P. Thunstr¨ om, M. P. Lopez, O. Eriksson, and A. Delin, Topological magnon in ex- change frustration driven incommensurate spin spiral of kagome-lattice ymn 6 sn 6, Physical Review B110, 174412 (2024). Supplemental Materials: Antiferromagnetic Phases ...

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Y. Wang, H. Wu, G. T. McCandless, J. Y. Chan, and M. N. Ali, Quantum states and intertwining phases in kagome materials, Nature Reviews Physics5, 635 (2023)

2023

[2] [2]

J.-X. Yin, W. Ma, T. A. Cochran, X. Xu, S. S. Zhang, H.-J. Tien, N. Shumiya, G. Cheng, K. Jiang, B. Lian, et al., Quantum-limit chern topological magnetism in 7 FIG. 3. Spin-polarized electronic band structures of (a,d) ZrFe 6Ge6, (b,e) ZrFe6Ge5, and (c,f) ZrFe 6Ge4 near the Fermi level. Red and blue curves indicate bands calculated with and without spin-...

work page 2020

[3] [3]

Venturini, R

G. Venturini, R. Welter, B. Malaman, and E. Ressouche, Magnetic structure of ymn6ge6 and room temperature magnetic structure of lumn6sn6 obtained from neutron 8 diffraction study, Journal of alloys and compounds200, 51 (1993)

work page 1993

[4] [4]

D. Chen, C. Le, C. Fu, H. Lin, W. Schnelle, Y. Sun, and C. Felser, Large anomalous hall effect in the kagome ferromagnet limn 6 sn 6, Physical Review B103, 144410 (2021)

work page 2021

[5] [5]

B. C. El Idrissi, G. Venturini, and B. Malaman, Crystal structures of rfe6sn6 (r = sc, y, gd-tm, lu) rare-earth iron stannides, Materials Research Bulletin26, 1331 (1991)

work page 1991

[6] [6]

S. Peng, Y. Han, G. Pokharel, J. Shen, Z. Li, M. Hashimoto, D. Lu, B. R. Ortiz, Y. Luo, H. Li,et al., Realizing kagome band structure in two-dimensional kagome surface states of rv 6 sn 6 (r= gd, ho), Physi- cal review letters127, 266401 (2021)

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Y. Hu, X. Wu, Y. Yang, S. Gao, N. C. Plumb, A. P. Schnyder, W. Xie, J. Ma, and M. Shi, Tunable topological dirac surface states and van hove singularities in kagome metal gdv6sn6, Science Advances8, eadd2024 (2022)

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Venturini, R

G. Venturini, R. Welter, and B. Malaman, Crystallo- graphic data and magnetic properties of rt6ge6 com- pounds (r=sc, y, nd, sm, gd-lu; t=mn, fe), Journal of alloys and compounds185, 99 (1992)

work page 1992