Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Axion insulator, Weyl points, quantum anomalous Hall effect and magnetic topological phase transition in Eu3In2As4

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · 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 predict that the antiferromagnetic compound $\mathrm{Eu_3In_2As_4}$ can be tuned by strain, magnetic field, and film thickness into an axion insulator, a single-pair Weyl semimetal, or a quantum anomalous…

desk verdict Solid and honest DFT prediction of multiple topological phases in Eu3In2As4, but the field-induced FM Weyl scenario lacks quantitative support given the 25 meV AFM-FM gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16998 v1 pith:2UENH57J submitted 2024-12-22 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Jingyu Yao , Ruihan Zhang , Sheng Zhang , Haohao Sheng , Youguo Shi , Zhong Fang , Hongming Weng , Zhijun Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall PACS 71.20.-b71.15.Mb73.43.-f75.70.Tj
keywords Eu3In2As4axioninsulatormagneticWeylsemimetalquantumanomalousHalleffecthigher-ordertopologicalaltermagnetfirst-principlescalculationsphasetransition
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 that the recently synthesized antiferromagnet $\mathrm{Eu_3In_2As_4}$ can be switched among several hard-to-reach topological electronic phases by modest external knobs. First-principles calculations show that about 1% tensile strain drives the antiferromagnetic state into an axion insulator with quantized magnetoelectric coupling $\theta=\pi$, identified by the magnetic parity index $Z_4=2$ and accompanied by higher-order topology with chiral hinge states. A magnetic field that induces the soft ferromagnetic state turns the material into an ideal magnetic Weyl semimetal with exactly one pair of Weyl points (or, for spin along the $c$ axis, a nodal ring). Stacking ferromagnetic layers into multilayer films on a magnetic insulating substrate yields a quantum anomalous Hall insulator whose Chern number grows with layer count. If these predictions hold, one compound could serve as a tunable laboratory for axion electrodynamics, Weyl physics, and dissipationless chiral transport.

What carries the argument

The central classifying object is the magnetic parity index $Z_4 = \sum_{k=1}^{8}(n^+_k - n^-_k)/2 \mod 4$, evaluated at the eight inversion-invariant momenta of an inversion-symmetric magnetic insulator; $Z_4=2$ marks the axion insulator and higher-order topology, while odd values mark a magnetic semimetal. Around this index the paper builds a four-band $\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{p}$ model fitted to first-principles band structures (parameters in Table I) that reproduces the strain-driven band inversion and the transition sequence NI ($Z_4=0$) $\rightarrow$ semimetal ($Z_4=1$) $\rightarrow$ axion insulator ($Z_4=2$). The second load-bearing object is the construction of each Eu$_3$ triplet as an effective layer in the $ac$ plane; stacking these layers along the $b$ direction converts the bulk axion phase into the odd-layer higher-order topological insulator and the even-layer axion insulator, and the ferromagnetic multilayer into a Chern insulator.

What would settle it

Neutron diffraction or resonant magnetic X-ray scattering that resolves the Eu spin arrangement would test the central assumption: if the true order breaks the assumed symmetry, the predicted $Z_4=2$ axion phase and single-pair Weyl points are not assured. On the transport side, a non-quantized Hall conductance in FM multilayer films would rule out the predicted high-Chern-number QAH state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that $\mathrm{Eu_3In_2As_4}$ sits close to a topological phase boundary in both its antiferromagnetic ground state and its field-induced ferromagnetic state. In the unstrained AFM state the material is a trivial narrow-gap insulator (gap roughly 3 meV), but about 1% tensile strain drives a band inversion that places it in the $Z_4=2$ class, which the paper identifies with an axion insulator ($\theta=\pi$) and a three-dimensional strong Stiefel-Whitney insulator. The assumed AFM order, with spins aligned within each Eu$_3$ triplet and anti-aligned between triplets, makes the system an altermagnet, and the spin direction selects the surface physics: the $b$-oriented and $c$-oriented configurations show different symmetry-protected Dirac cones and gap patterns. In the induced FM state ($Z_4=1$), the material becomes an ideal magnetic Weyl semimetal with a single pair of Weyl points for spin along $a$ or $b$, and a nodal-ring semimetal for spin along $c$. Treating each Eu$_3$ triplet as a layer, odd-layer stacks of the AFM phase form a higher-order topological insulator, even-layer stacks form the axion insulator, and FM multilayer films on a magnetic insulating substrate form a Chern insulator with Chern number one per layer, hence a high-Chern-number quantum anomalous Hall insulator.

Load-bearing premise

Every predicted phase depends on the assumed antiferromagnetic order in which spins within each Eu3 triplet align and neighboring triplets anti-align; a different real magnetic structure would change the symmetry and the topological classification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • About 1% tensile strain should convert AFM $\mathrm{Eu_3In_2As_4}$ into an axion insulator with quantized $\theta=\pi$, gapped surfaces, and chiral hinge states in odd-layer stacks.
  • In the field-induced FM state, angle-resolved photoemission and transport should reveal a single pair of Weyl points near the Fermi level, with Fermi arcs on the (100) and (001) surfaces.
  • Ferromagnetic multilayer films on a magnetic insulating substrate should show a quantized anomalous Hall conductance that increases by $e^2/h$ with each added Eu$_3$-triplet layer.
  • Rotating the applied magnetic field in the FM state should switch the system between the nodal-ring semimetal (spin along $c$) and the single-pair Weyl semimetal (spin along $a$ or $b$).

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the assumed antiferromagnetic order is confirmed by diffraction, the same design rule—Eu$_3$-triplet layers with inversion symmetry and altermagnetic order—could be checked in related Zintl compounds, where the $Z_4$ index would be the guide.
  • The small calculated energy scales (a roughly 3 meV gap and sub-meV magnetic anisotropy) suggest that in practice the phase boundaries may also be crossed by alloying or external pressure, neither of which is explored in the paper.
  • A quantitative test of the Weyl-semimetal prediction is the anomalous Hall conductivity: the paper estimates $\sigma_{xz} = (e^2/h)(\Delta k^W_y/2\pi)$, so measuring the Hall response in the field-induced FM state would directly probe the Weyl-point separation.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses DFT+U, parity-eigenvalue analysis, Wilson-loop computations, surface-state calculations, and fitted four-band k·p models to argue that Eu3In2As4 sits near a magnetic topological phase boundary. Specifically, it claims that the pristine AFM state is a ~3 meV trivial insulator; 1% tensile strain drives it into a Z4 = 2 axion insulator / higher-order topological insulator; a field-induced FM state is an ideal Weyl semimetal with a single pair of Weyl points or a nodal ring; and FM multilayer films realize the quantum anomalous Hall effect. The central claims all depend on a specific assumed AFM order and on resolving very small energy scales.

Significance. If the predictions hold, Eu3In2As4 would be a rare intrinsic magnetic material in which strain, field, and film thickness select among axion insulator, Weyl semimetal, and QAHE phases, making it valuable for axion-electrodynamics and topological-transport experiments. The computations are internally consistent, use standard and appropriate methods, and the parity-index, Wilson-loop, and surface-state results are not circularly defined from the target conclusions. However, the significance is conditional: the phase diagram rests on a ~3 meV pristine gap, a <1 meV magnetic anisotropy, a specific assumed AFM order, and a field-induced FM scenario whose computed energy cost is not obviously compatible with the cited 1.5 T field scale.

major comments (4)
  1. [Altermagnet and symmetry / Magnetic Weyl semimetal with external fields]
  2. [Crystal structure and band structures / Note added]
  3. [Axion insulator under stains]
  4. [Quantum anomalous Hall effect in quantum wells]
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section title]
  2. [Fig. 2(f)]
  3. [Effective k·p model and topological phase transition]
  4. [Introduction]
  5. [Throughout]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Z4, Chern numbers, and Weyl points are computed from DFT bands and Wilson loops; k·p models are fitted interpretations, and cited experimental results are external evidence.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the central results — Z4=2 axion insulator under 1% tensile strain, Z4=1 FM semimetal, Weyl point positions, surface Dirac cones/Fermi arcs, and bilayer Chern number C=1 — are computed directly from DFT band structures and 1D Wilson loops (Figs. 2-4), not from fitted parameters. The four-band k·p models are explicitly fitted to the DFT bands ('By fitting the DFT band structures, the values of the k·p parameters ... are shown in Table I') and are used to interpret the transitions, so they are not a separate predictive input being renamed as a prediction. The identification Z4=2 with axion angle θ=π and Z4=1 with a single pair of Weyl points is an external mathematical classification (refs. 12-16), not an assumption tailored to this material. The same-group experimental citation [48] supplies lattice constants, the AFM ground state, and the field-induced soft FM state; these are external magnetization data, not outputs of the present calculation, so the citation does not make the argument circular. The paper's own stated limitations — uncertain real AFM order ('the real AFM order may be more complicated [62]') and the difficulty of predicting the exact gap from DFT+U — and the quantitative question of whether a 1.5 T field can overcome the ~25 meV AFM-FM energy difference concern correctness and robustness, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Central claims rest on DFT+U band structures, an assumed AFM order, and the Z4 parity criterion. U=7 eV and the 1% strain value are material-specific inputs; the k·p parameters are fitted to DFT. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • U (Hubbard parameter) = 7 eV
    DFT+U on Eu 4f electrons; chosen from the literature (ref 55), not fitted here, but it controls the band gap and thus the topological phase at the 3 meV scale.
  • Tensile strain = 1%
    Applied to drive the AFM state from trivial (Z4=0) to axion insulator (Z4=2); the threshold is material-specific and not independently benchmarked.
  • k·p parameters (b1, b2, tx, ty, tz, A, masses, f1, f2) = Values in Table I
    Fitted to the DFT band structures to construct effective models; they reproduce the phase transitions but are not independent predictions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The assumed AFM order, with parallel spins within each Eu3 triplet and antiparallel spins between triplets, is the ground state.
    Used throughout for AFM band structures and Z4 indices; the authors note that the real AFM order may be more complicated (ref 62 and the text near Fig. 2a).
  • domain assumption DFT+U with PBE-GGA accurately resolves a pristine gap of about 3 meV and strain-induced band inversion.
    Topological transitions occur at energy scales comparable to expected DFT errors; the conclusion admits that the exact gap is difficult to predict.
  • standard math The Z4 parity index criterion correctly classifies magnetic insulators and semimetals.
    Uses known theory (refs 14-16); it is an accepted framework, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The field-induced FM state is well described by the collinear FM calculations that preserve inversion symmetry.
    Used to predict Weyl points and the QAHE; the experimental field-induced state is soft FM but its detailed magnetic structure is not measured.
  • domain assumption The experimental crystal structure and AFM ground state reported in ref 48 are correct.
    All calculations use experimental lattice constants and assume the AFM ground state based on the synthesis report.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Axion insulator, Weyl points, quantum anomalous Hall effect and magnetic topological phase transition in Eu3In2As4." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2UENH57J

@misc{pith2026241216998,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Axion insulator, Weyl points, quantum anomalous Hall effect and magnetic topological phase transition in Eu3In2As4},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2UENH57J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16998}
}
abstract

The magnetic topological phases attract much interest, such as the axion insulator, higher-order topology, Weyl semimetals, and the quantum anomalous Hall effect (QAHE). Here, we predict that the axion insulator phase, magnetic Weyl points, and QAHE can be achieved in Eu3In2As4. Recently, the single-crystal Eu3In2As4 has been successfully synthesized, which exhibits an antiferromagnetic (AFM) ground state. Our first-principles calculations show that it lies on the phase boundary between multiple magnetic topological phases, and the magnetic anisotropy is weak, with an energy difference less than 1 meV. In the AFM state, it can be tuned to an axion insulator by tensile strain. The quantized axion angle $\theta = \pi$ and the magnetic higher-order topology are characterized by the parity index $Z_4 = 2$. By applying an external magnetic field, the induced ferromagnetic (FM) state becomes an ideal magnetic topological semimetal with a single pair of Weyl points or a nodal ring. The QAHE can be achieved in FM multilayer films of Eu3In2As4 on a magnetic insulating substrate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16998 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) Multiple magnetic topological phases. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) FM band structures and topological [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2015 (1988)

    1988

  2. [2]

    R. Yu, W. Zhang, H.-J. Zhang, S.-C. Zhang, X. Dai, and Z. Fang, Science 329, 61 (2010)

    2010

  3. [3]

    Chang, J

    C.-Z. Chang, J. Zhang, X. Feng, J. Shen, Z. Zhang, M. Guo, K. Li, Y. Ou, P. Wei, L.-L. Wang, Z.-Q. Ji, Y. Feng, S. Ji, X. Chen, J. Jia, X. Dai, Z. Fang, S.-C. Zhang, K. He, Y. Wang, L. Lu, X.-C. Ma, and Q.-K. Xue, Science 340, 167 (2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    B. A. Bernevig, Nat. Phys. 11, 698 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Z. Wang, M. G. Vergniory, S. Kushwaha, M. Hirschberger, E. V. Chulkov, A. Ernst, N. P. Ong, R. J. Cava, and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 239901 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    X. Wan, A. M. Turner, A. Vishwanath, and S. Y. Savrasov, Phys. Rev. B 83, 205101 (2011)

    2011

  7. [7]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1799 (1987)

    work page 1987

  8. [8]

    X.-L. Qi, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 78, 195424 (2008)

    2008

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    A. M. Essin, J. E. Moore, and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 146805 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    R. Li, J. Wang, X.-L. Qi, and S.-C. Zhang, Nat. Phys. 6, 284 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    Sekine and K

    A. Sekine and K. Nomura, J. Appl. Phys. 129, 141101 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Fang and L

    C. Fang and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. B 91, 161105 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    P. Rosa, Y. Xu, M. Rahn, J. Souza, S. Kushwaha, L. Veiga, A. Bombardi, S. Thomas, M. Janoschek, E. Bauer, M. Chan, Z. Wang, J. Thompson, N. Harrison, P. Pagliuso, A. Bernevig, and F. Ronning, npj Quantum Mater. 5, 52 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Y. Xu, Z. Song, Z. Wang, H. Weng, and X. Dai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 256402 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Zhang, F

    R.-X. Zhang, F. Wu, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 136407 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    M. Gu, J. Li, H. Sun, Y. Zhao, C. Liu, J. Liu, H. Lu, and Q. Liu, Nat. Commun. 12, 3524 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    M. Mogi, M. Kawamura, R. Yoshimi, A. Tsukazaki, Y. Kozuka, N. Shirakawa, K. Takahashi, M. Kawasaki, and Y. Tokura, Nat. Mater. 16, 516 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    D. Xiao, J. Jiang, J.-H. Shin, W. Wang, F. Wang, Y.-F. Zhao, C. Liu, W. Wu, M. H. W. Chan, N. Samarth, and C.-Z. Chang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 056801 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    M. Mogi, M. Kawamura, A. Tsukazaki, R. Yoshimi, K. S. Takahashi, M. Kawasaki, and Y. Tokura, Sci. Adv. 3, eaao1669 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    L. Wu, M. Salehi, N. Koirala, J. Moon, S. Oh, and N. P. Armitage, Science 354, 1124 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    C. Yue, Y. Xu, Z. Song, H. Weng, Y.-M. Lu, C. Fang, and X. Dai, Nat. Phys. 15, 577 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    S. V. Eremeev, M. M. Otrokov, A. Ernst, and E. V. Chulkov, Phys. Rev. B 105, 195105 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    C. Liu, Y. Wang, H. Li, Y. Wu, Y. Li, J. Li, K. He, Y. Xu, J. Zhang, and Y. Wang, Nat. Mater. 19, 522 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Zhang, M

    D. Zhang, M. Shi, T. Zhu, D. Xing, H. Zhang, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 206401 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    J. Li, Y. Li, S. Du, Z. Wang, B.-L. Gu, S.-C. Zhang, K. He, W. Duan, and Y. Xu, Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw5685 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    M. M. Otrokov, I. I. Klimovskikh, H. Bentmann, D. Es- tyunin, A. Zeugner, Z. S. Aliev, S. Gaß, A. U. B. Wolter, A. V. Koroleva, A. M. Shikin, M. Blanco-Rey, M. Hoff- mann, I. P. Rusinov, A. Y. Vyazovskaya, S. V. Ere- meev, Y. M. Koroteev, V. M. Kuznetsov, F. Freyse, J. S´ anch...

    2019

  19. [27]

    M. M. Otrokov, I. P. Rusinov, M. Blanco-Rey, M. Hoff- mann, A. Y. Vyazovskaya, S. V. Eremeev, A. Ernst, P. M. Echenique, A. Arnau, and E. V. Chulkov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 107202 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Y. Li, Y. Jiang, J. Zhang, Z. Liu, Z. Yang, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 102, 121107(R) (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    S. X. M. Riberolles, T. V. Trevisan, B. Kuthanazhi, T. W. Heitmann, F. Ye, D. C. Johnston, S. L. Bud’ko, D. H. Ryan, P. C. Canfield, A. Kreyssig, A. Vishwanath, R. J. McQueeney, L. L. Wang, P. P. Orth, and B. G. Ueland, Nat. Commun. 12, 999 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    E. Liu, Y. Sun, N. Kumar, L. Muechler, A. Sun, L. Jiao, S.-Y. Yang, D. Liu, A. Liang, Q. Xu, J. Kroder, V. S¨ uß, H. Borrmann, C. Shekhar, Z. Wang, C. Xi, W. Wang, W. Schnelle, S. Wirth, Y. Chen, S. T. B. Goennenwein, and C. Felser, Nat. Phys. 14, 1125 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Q. Wang, Y. Xu, R. Lou, Z. Liu, M. Li, Y. Huang, D. Shen, H. Weng, S. Wang, and H. Lei, Nat. Commun. 9, 3681 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Z. Liu, S. Zhang, Z. Fang, H. Weng, and Q. Wu, (2024), arXiv:2401.15146 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2024

  25. [33]

    Liang, A

    Z. Liang, A. Luo, M. Shi, Q. Zhang, S. Nie, J. J. Ying, J.-F. He, T. Wu, Z. Wang, G. Xu, Z. Wang, and X.-H. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 102, 161115 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    S. H. Lee, D. Graf, L. Min, Y. Zhu, H. Yi, S. Cio- cys, Y. Wang, E. S. Choi, R. Basnet, A. Fereidouni, A. Wegner, Y.-F. Zhao, K. Verlinde, J. He, R. Redwing, V. Gopalan, H. O. H. Churchill, A. Lanzara, N. Samarth, C.-Z. Chang, J. Hu, and Z. Q. Mao, Phys. Rev. X 11, 031032 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    S. Nie, Y. Sun, F. B. Prinz, Z. Wang, H. Weng, Z. Fang, and X. Dai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 076403 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Bradlyn, L

    B. Bradlyn, L. Elcoro, J. Cano, M. Vergniory, Z. Wang, C. Felser, M. I. Aroyo, and B. A. Bernevig, Nature 547, 298 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Y. Xu, L. Elcoro, Z.-D. Song, B. J. Wieder, M. G. Vergniory, N. Regnault, Y. Chen, C. Felser, and B. A. Bernevig, Nature 586, 702 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Elcoro, B

    L. Elcoro, B. J. Wieder, Z. Song, Y. Xu, B. Bradlyn, and B. A. Bernevig, Nat. Commun. 12, 5965 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    J. Gao, Z. Guo, H. Weng, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 106, 035150 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    S. Tian, S. Gao, S. Nie, Y. Qian, C. Gong, Y. Fu, H. Li, W. Fan, P. Zhang, T. Kondo, S. Shin, J. Adell, H. Fed- derwitz, H. Ding, Z. Wang, T. Qian, and H. Lei, Phys. Rev. B 102, 035144 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Y. Wang, Z. Wang, Z. Fang, and X. Dai, Phys. Rev. B 91, 125139 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    Zhang, W

    J.-M. Zhang, W. Zhu, Y. Zhang, D. Xiao, and Y. Yao, 7 Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 266405 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    Chang, P

    C.-Z. Chang, P. Tang, Y.-L. Wang, X. Feng, K. Li, Z. Zhang, Y. Wang, L.-L. Wang, X. Chen, C. Liu, W. Duan, K. He, X.-C. Ma, and Q.-K. Xue, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 056801 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    W. Liu, D. West, L. He, Y. Xu, J. Liu, K. Wang, Y. Wang, G. van der Laan, R. Zhang, S. Zhang, and K. L. Wang, ACS Nano 9, 10237 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    Kim, S.-H

    J. Kim, S.-H. Jhi, and R. Wu, Nano Lett. 16, 6656 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    D. S. Lee, T.-H. Kim, C.-H. Park, C.-Y. Chung, Y. S. Lim, W.-S. Seo, and H.-H. Park, CrystEngComm 15, 5532 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    Y. Gong, J. Guo, J. Li, K. Zhu, M. Liao, X. Liu, Q. Zhang, L. Gu, L. Tang, X. Feng, D. Zhang, W. Li, C. Song, L. Wang, P. Yu, X. Chen, Y. Wang, H. Yao, W. Duan, Y. Xu, S.-C. Zhang, X. Ma, Q.-K. Xue, and K. He, Chin. Phys. Lett. 36, 076801 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    K. Jia, J. Yao, X. He, Y. Li, J. Deng, M. Yang, J. Wang, Z. Zhu, C. Wang, D. Yan, H. L. Feng, J. Shen, Y. Luo, Z. Wang, and Y. Shi, (2024), arXiv:2403.07637 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    M. S. Song, L. Houben, Y. Zhao, H. Bae, N. Rothem, A. Gupta, B. Yan, B. Kalisky, M. Zaluska-Kotur, P. Kac- man, H. Shtrikman, and H. Beidenkopf, Nat. Nanotech- nol. (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Phys. Rev. B50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  43. [51]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B 59, 1758 (1999)

    1999

  44. [52]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uuller, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  45. [53]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Comput. Mater. Sci.6, 15 (1996)

    1996

  46. [54]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  47. [55]

    S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. J. Humphreys, and A. P. Sutton, Phys. Rev. B 57, 1505 (1998)

    1998

  48. [56]

    H. J. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, Phys. Rev. B 13, 5188 (1976)

    1976

  49. [57]

    J. Gao, Q. Wu, C. Persson, and Z. Wang, Comput. Phys. Commun. 261, 107760 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Zhang, H

    S. Zhang, H. Sheng, Z.-D. Song, C. Liang, Y. Jiang, S. Sun, Q. Wu, H. Weng, Z. Fang, X. Dai, and Z. Wang, Chin. Phys. Lett. 40, 127101 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Jiang, M

    J. Jiang, M. M. Olmstead, S. M. Kauzlarich, H.-O. Lee, P. Klavins, and Z. Fisk, Inorg. Chem. 44, 5322 (2005)

    2005

  52. [60]

    A. C. Payne, A. E. Sprauve, M. M. Olmstead, S. M. Kauzlarich, J. Y. Chan, B. Reisner, and J. Lynn, J. Solid State Chem. 163, 498 (2002)

    2002

  53. [61]

    A. C. Payne, A. E. Sprauve, A. P. Holm, M. M. Olm- stead, S. M. Kauzlarich, and P. Klavins, J. Alloys Compd. 338, 229 (2002)

    2002

  54. [62]

    M. C. Rahn, M. N. Wilson, T. J. Hicken, F. L. Pratt, C. Wang, F. Orlandi, D. D. Khalyavin, P. Manuel, L. S. I. Veiga, A. Bombardi, S. Francoual, P. Bereciartua, A. S. Sukhanov, J. D. Thompson, S. M. Thomas, P. F. S. Rosa, T. Lancaster, F. Ronning, and M. Janoschek, Phys. Rev. ...

    2024

  55. [63]

    C. Fang, Y. Chen, H.-Y. Kee, and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. B 92, 081201 (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    J. Ahn, D. Kim, Y. Kim, and B.-J. Yang, Physical Re- view Letters 121, 106403 (2018)

    2018

  57. [65]

    J. Ahn, S. Park, D. Kim, Y. Kim, and B.-J. Yang, Chin. Phys. B 28, 117101 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    J. Ahn, S. Park, and B.-J. Yang, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021013 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    Q. Wu, A. A. Soluyanov, and T. Bzduˇ sek, Science 365, 1273 (2019)

    2019

  60. [68]

    M. Pan, D. Li, J. Fan, and H. Huang, npj Comput. Mater. 8, 1 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    Z. Guo, J. Deng, Y. Xie, and Z. Wang, npj Quantum Mater. 7, 87 (2022)

    2022

  62. [70]

    Ahn and B.-J

    J. Ahn and B.-J. Yang, Phys. Rev. B 99, 235125 (2019)

    2019

  63. [71]

    W. Fan, S. Nie, C. Wang, B. Fu, C. Yi, S. Gao, Z. Rao, D. Yan, J. Ma, M. Shi, Y. Huang, Y. Shi, Z. Wang, T. Qian, and H. Ding, Nat. Commun. 12, 2052 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    Z. Song, Z. Fang, and C. Fang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 246402 (2017)

    2017

  65. [73]

    Schindler, A

    F. Schindler, A. M. Cook, M. G. Vergniory, Z. Wang, S. S. P. Parkin, B. A. Bernevig, and T. Neupert, Sci. Adv. 4, eaat0346 (2018)

    2018

  66. [74]

    Fang and L

    C. Fang and L. Fu, Sci. Adv. 5, eaat2374 (2019)

    2019

  67. [75]

    S.-Y. Gao, S. Xu, H. Li, C.-J. Yi, S.-M. Nie, Z.-C. Rao, H. Wang, Q.-X. Hu, X.-Z. Chen, W.-H. Fan, J.-R. Huang, Y.-B. Huang, N. Pryds, M. Shi, Z.-J. Wang, Y.-G. Shi, T.-L. Xia, T. Qian, and H. Ding, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021016 (2021)

    2021

  68. [76]

    Y. Zhao, Y. Jiang, H. Bae, K. Das, Y. Li, C.-X. Liu, and B. Yan, (2024), arXiv:2403.06304 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.