Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Thermoelectric transport in Ru$_2$TiSi full-Heusler compounds

T0 review · 3 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 P-type Ru2TiSi could push zT past 1 at 700 K

desk verdict Solid new p-type doping data and a credible light-hole story, but the zT>1 headline is an extrapolation that depends on unmeasured lattice thermal conductivity. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06039 v1 pith:33BGNCRZ submitted 2024-12-08 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Fabian Garmroudi , Michael Parzer , Takao Mori , Andrej Pustogow , Ernst Bauer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords Ru2TiSifull-Heuslerthermoelectrictwo-parabolicbandmodelSeebeckcoefficientzTfigureofmeritp-typedopinglatticethermalconductivity
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 sets out to explain why the full-Heusler compound Ru2TiSi is a better thermoelectric than its well-studied isovalent cousin Fe2VAl, and to predict how good it could become. Using a two-parabolic band model fitted to Seebeck data, the authors find a band gap of about 0.22–0.24 eV, light holes in the valence band ($m^*_{\mathrm{VB}} \approx 1\,m_e$) and heavier conduction electrons ($m^*_{\mathrm{CB}} \approx 3.3\,m_e$). This electron–hole asymmetry makes p-type doping two to three times more efficient than n-type doping, and pushes the Seebeck maximum to higher temperatures. The paper concludes that with lattice thermal conductivity reduced by Zr or Hf substitution, optimally doped p-type Ru2TiSi could reach $zT > 1$ at 700 K, which would put full-Heuslers in a competitive range for thermoelectric applications.

What carries the argument

The two-parabolic band (2PB) model, solved with Fermi integrals in a Boltzmann-transport fitting routine, is the central object: it treats transport as parallel conduction through one valence and one conduction band with effective masses, a band gap, and a Fermi level as adjustable parameters. The model's ability to reproduce both the temperature dependence of the Seebeck coefficient and its variation with doping concentration is what fixes the band gap at 0.22–0.24 eV and the mass asymmetry. The second piece of machinery is the alloy-scattering model for the lattice thermal conductivity, which connects the mass and volume fluctuations from substituting heavy 5d elements (Ta, Hf, Zr) to a suppression of $\kappa_L$ and thereby enables the $zT$ estimate.

What would settle it

Measure the lattice thermal conductivity of Ru2Ti1-xHfxSi at x = 0.2 and 0.5 between 300 and 700 K; the zT > 1 prediction requires the measured $\kappa_L$ to fall on the alloy-scattering curve derived from Ru2Ti1-xTaxSi and Fe2VAl data, and requires the weighted mobility of p-type samples to remain near the measured value after Hf substitution. If $\kappa_L$ at 700 K exceeds the modeled value, or if the hole mobility degrades, the prediction fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that electronic transport in Ru2TiSi is quantitatively captured by a two-parabolic band model with a narrow gap and a strong valence/conduction band asymmetry: holes are light ($m^*_{\mathrm{VB}} \approx 1\,m_e$), electrons are about three times heavier, and the Fermi level of the pristine compound sits about 0.06 eV below the valence band edge. This asymmetry, quantified by a weighting parameter $\epsilon_m$ of order 60 from fits to the temperature-dependent Seebeck coefficient, means that a few atomic percent of Al on the Si site moves the Fermi level deep into the dispersive valence band, whereas n-type Ta doping quickly encounters a flat, heavy second conduction band that pins the Fermi level. The authors therefore establish p-type Ru2TiSi as the promising doping direction and, combining the measured power factor with an alloy-scattering estimate for lattice thermal conductivity, predict $zT = 1$–$1.2$ at 700 K for optimally substituted Ru2Ti0.5Hf0.5Si.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted zT > 1 assumes that substituting Hf or Zr for Ti suppresses the lattice thermal conductivity of Ru2TiSi to the alloy-scattering values fitted to Ta-substituted samples and Fe2VAl, while leaving the light valence-band holes unchanged, although no thermal conductivity data for Ru2TiSi or its alloys are presented.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • p-type doping of Ru2TiSi is two to three times more efficient than n-type doping, so small Al substitutions (a few at.%) are sufficient to reach optimal carrier concentrations.
  • The Seebeck coefficient of Ru2TiSi peaks near 200 µV/K at much higher temperatures than Fe2VAl's, postponing the bipolar degradation and improving high-temperature performance.
  • Substituting Hf or Zr for Ti is expected to reduce lattice thermal conductivity without degrading the light-hole valence band, because the valence band edge is dominated by Ru states.
  • If the prediction holds, the resulting $zT = 1$–$1.2$ at 700 K would make Ru2TiSi-based full-Heuslers competitive with established half-Heusler thermoelectrics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the zT>1 prediction is confirmed experimentally, the practical bottleneck shifts to synthesizing phase-pure Ru2Ti1-xHfxSi alloys and verifying that Hf substitution does not introduce antisite defects that scatter the light holes — a risk the paper does not address.
  • The valence band's resemblance to chalcogenide semiconductors (Bi2Te3, PbTe) suggests a broader search principle: among VEC=6 Heuslers, compounds with dispersive t2g or s/p-like pseudogap states rather than localized d states are the promising thermoelectric candidates.
  • A testable extension is temperature-dependent Hall measurements on Ru2TiSi1-xAlx: the 2PB model predicts a specific Hall coefficient temperature dependence that would distinguish the light-hole scenario from alternative explanations such as a single band with energy-dependent scattering.
  • The heavy flat conduction band detected in n-type fits implies that any n-type optimization of Ru2TiSi will face diminishing returns; the asymmetry might, however, be useful for thermoelectric cooling devices if the two bands can be tuned independently.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports new synthesis and transport measurements for p-type Ru2TiSi1−xAlx (Seebeck coefficient and resistivity up to about 860 K) and combines these with literature data on n-type Ru2Ti1−xTaxSi and Fe2VAl. Using a two-parabolic band (2PB) model, the authors extract a band gap Eg ≈ 0.22–0.24 eV, a light valence band effective mass m*_VB ≈ 1.0 m_e, and a heavier conduction band effective mass m*_CB ≈ 3.3 m_e for Ru2TiSi. They argue that holes are more mobile than electrons and that p-type doping is two to three times more efficient than n-type doping. The central performance claim is a modeled zT > 1 at 700 K for optimally doped p-type Ru2TiSi if the lattice thermal conductivity is reduced to roughly 1–2 W m−1 K−1 by Hf or Zr substitution at the Ti site. The paper contains no thermal conductivity measurements for Ru2TiSi or any of its alloys; the κL reduction is estimated from an alloy scattering model calibrated on Ru2Ti1−xTaxSi and Fe2VAl literature.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this work would identify Ru2TiSi as a promising p-type full-Heusler thermoelectric platform, with a quantitative band-asymmetry picture that could guide further alloying strategies. The strengths of the manuscript are the new experimental data set for p-type Ru2TiSi1−xAlx, the transparent tabulation of 2PB fit parameters, the direct comparison with Fe2VAl, and the use of weighted mobility to support the electron–hole asymmetry. The main limitation is that the headline zT > 1 is a model extrapolation that depends on an unmeasured lattice thermal conductivity reduction and on an assumed preservation of valence band mobility under Hf/Zr substitution; the experimental evidence presented in the paper directly supports only the qualitative conclusion that p-type doping is more efficient than n-type doping in Ru2TiSi.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III C, Fig. 5(b,c)] The central prediction zT ≈ 1–1.2 at 700 K for Ru2Ti0.5Hf0.5Si is obtained by combining the 2PB electronic model with a lattice thermal conductivity κL estimated from an alloy scattering model calibrated on Ru2Ti1−xTaxSi (Ref. [28]) and on Fe2VAl literature. No thermal conductivity measurement for Ru2TiSi or any of its alloys is presented in the manuscript, and the assumed reduction to κL(x=0.5) ≈ 1–2 W m−1 K−1 is never demonstrated. Because the pristine κL of Ru2TiSi is unknown, the required suppression factor cannot be assessed from the data shown. I request either thermal conductivity data (or a documented literature value) for Ru2TiSi and for Ru2Ti1−xHfxSi or Ru2Ti1−xZrxSi, or a clear revision of the abstract and conclusions that labels zT > 1 as a conditional hypothesis rather than a demonstrated result.
  2. [Secs. III A–C, Table I] The 2PB model parameters are not stable across the doping series: for n-type Ru2Ti1−xTaxSi, the extracted band gap rises from 0.24 eV at x = 0 to 0.67–0.78 eV for x ≥ 0.03, and ϵ_m (interpreted as m_CB) reaches values of several hundred electron masses (Table I). The authors attribute this to a second, much heavier conduction band, which is a plausible explanation, but it means that the pristine two-parabolic-band description no longer applies once the Fermi level enters the conduction band. The same model is then used to compute the power factor and zT in Fig. 5(a,c). I therefore do not see an independent validation of the quantitative PF and zT predictions; a sensitivity analysis, or a restriction of the model to the lightly doped regime, would be needed before the numerical zT claim can be accepted.
  3. [Sec. III C, Fig. 5(c)] The assertion that Hf or Zr substitution at the Ti site leaves the valence band dispersion and hole mobility unchanged is based on the Ru character of the valence band and on Fe2VAl alloying experience, but no electronic transport or band-structure data for actual Ru2Ti1−xHfxSi or Ru2Ti1−xZrxSi alloys are presented. Since the zT peak in Fig. 5(c) requires both a strong κL reduction and retained hole mobility, the sensitivity of zT to a 20–50% mobility reduction should be quantified; without such an analysis, the prediction is not testable from the data shown in this manuscript.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4(b) caption] The caption reads 'Ru2TiSi1−xAl1−x' in both occurrences; this should be 'Ru2TiSi1−xAlx'.
  2. [Sec. II and Appendix A] The text states that powder X-ray diffraction displayed a single Heusler phase after melting, but only the x = 0.05 pattern is shown and discussed in Appendix A. It would be helpful to state explicitly that all synthesized compositions were phase-pure, or to show the phase analysis for the full series.
  3. [Fig. 5(c)] The shading used to distinguish 20% and 50% Hf substitution in Fig. 5(c) may be difficult to distinguish in printed grayscale; please use line styles or labels.
  4. [Abstract and Conclusions] The abstract says 'demonstrate that an exceptionally high zT > 1 can be realized,' whereas the conclusions say 'we predict that p-type Ru2TiSi would outperform...' and 'potentially realizing zT > 1.' These statements should be made consistent, given that no thermal conductivity data are reported.
  5. [Figs. 3–5] Experimental data points are shown without error bars, and the uncertainty in the 2PB fit parameters is not discussed. A brief statement on measurement and fit uncertainties would help the reader judge how strongly the extracted m*_VB ≈ 1 m_e and m*_CB ≈ 3.3 m_e values are constrained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: fitted transport model is used for extrapolation, but the central claims are additionally checked against experiment and external DOS, and the zT>1 statement is explicitly conditional on an assumed lattice-thermal-conductivity reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) measure S(T), rho(T) for p-type Ru2TiSi1-xAlx; (ii) take n-type Ru2Ti1-xTaxSi S(T) and S(p,n) data from Fujimoto et al.; (iii) fit a two-parabolic-band (2PB) model to these Seebeck data to extract Eg, effective-mass weighting, and Fermi-level position; (iv) compare with Materials Project DOS; (v) use the same model to compute power factor, electronic thermal conductivity, and zT. None of these steps reduces to its inputs by construction. The fitted parameters (Eg ~ 0.22-0.24 eV, m*_VB ~ 1 m_e, m*_CB ~ 3.3 m_e) are obtained from Seebeck data, and the power factor is a different observable that the paper explicitly compares with experimental PF points: 'A more than two times larger PF is predicted (and experimentally achieved) for p-type Ru2TiSi' (Fig. 5 caption). Thus the PF statement is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction; it is a model extrapolation corroborated by data. The zT>1 estimate is openly conditional: 'under the reasonable assumption that the substitution with other 5d elements, such as Hf/Ti, results in a similar suppression of kappa_L' (Sec. III C). That is a missing-evidence or support-gap issue, not circularity. Self-citations (SeeBand software, prior fH and skutterudite modeling by the same group) are methodological and non-load-bearing; the transport equations are standard Boltzmann theory, and the qualitative p-type superiority is independently supported by direct S(T), rho(T), and weighted-mobility data and by external DOS from the Materials Project. No step invokes a self-citation chain as the sole justification for a forced conclusion. Therefore no circular step is identified.

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

The central zT > 1 prediction rests on a calibrated transport model and an assumed lattice thermal conductivity reduction. The 2PB model's fitted parameters (EF, Eg, epsilon_m) are free parameters; the alloy scattering model and rigid-band doping are domain assumptions; the transferability of Hf/Zr alloying to kappa_L reduction is an ad hoc assumption without direct measurement.

free parameters (6)
  • Fermi level EF = -0.09 to 0.12 eV depending on sample
    Fitted per sample in the 2PB model; controls low-temperature Seebeck slope.
  • Band gap Eg = 0.11-0.24 eV (p-type), 0.24-0.78 eV (n-type)
    Fitted per sample in the 2PB model; drifts with doping, suggesting model overparameterization rather than a fixed band gap.
  • Band weighting epsilon_m = 1.2 to 392
    Fitted per sample; interpreted as m_CB/m_VB and used to argue for a heavy second conduction band.
  • Valence band effective mass m*_VB = about 1.0 m_e
    Derived from carrier concentration dependence of S at 300 K.
  • Conduction band effective mass m*_CB = about 3.3 m_e
    Derived from doping-dependent S at 300 K; inconsistent with epsilon_m from high-T fits unless a second CB is invoked.
  • Lattice thermal conductivity of Ru2Ti0.5Hf0.5Si = not measured; alloy scattering model values
    Assumed to follow the same composition dependence as Ta-substituted Ru2TiSi and Fe2VAl; central to zT > 1.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Boltzmann transport theory and Fermi-Dirac statistics with constant relaxation time
    SeeBand solves Fermi transport integrals; Seebeck is treated as independent of relaxation time.
  • domain assumption Two-parabolic band approximation (one valence, one conduction band) captures transport
    Central modeling assumption; paper acknowledges a second conduction band is needed to explain n-type S(T) anomalies.
  • domain assumption Rigid-band doping: composition changes only shift EF, not the band structure
    Used to map x to carrier concentration via p,n = 16*VEC/a^3 and to interpret EF positions.
  • domain assumption Wiedemann-Franz law holds for electronic thermal conductivity
    Used to compute kappa_e in the zT estimate.
  • ad hoc to paper Hf/Zr substitution suppresses kappa_L similarly to Ta and Fe2VAl alloying, without affecting electronic transport
    No Ru2TiSi thermal conductivity data; the zT > 1 result depends on this.
  • domain assumption Materials Project DFT DOS is accurate enough for qualitative band structure comparison
    Used to compare pseudogap widths and DOS effective masses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermoelectric transport in Ru$_2$TiSi full-Heusler compounds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/33BGNCRZ

@misc{pith2026241206039,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermoelectric transport in Ru$_2$TiSi full-Heusler compounds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/33BGNCRZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06039}
}
abstract

Heusler compounds with six valence electrons per atom have attracted interest as thermoelectric materials owing to their semimetallic and semiconducting properties. Here, we theoretically and experimentally investigate electronic transport in Ru$_2$TiSi-based full-Heuslers. We show that electronic transport in this system can be well captured by a two-parabolic band model. The larger band gap of Ru$_2$TiSi promises a higher thermoelectric performance, compared to its isovalent family member Fe$_2$VAl, which has been studied as a thermoelectric material for over two decades. Additionally, we identify $p$-type Ru$_2$TiSi as far more efficient than previously studied $n$-type compounds and demonstrate that this can be traced back to much lighter and more mobile holes originating from dispersive valence bands. Our findings demonstrate that an exceptionally high dimensionless figure of merit $zT > 1$ can be realized in these $p$-type compounds around 700 K upon proper reduction of the lattice thermal conductivity, e.g., by substituting Zr or Hf for Ti.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06039 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Comparison of temperature-dependent Seebeck co [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a,b) displays the temperature-dependent and doping concentration-dependent Seebeck coefficient (S(T), S(p, n)), respectively. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. X-ray powder diffraction pattern of phase-pure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (b)), which is another indirect proof of the flat and heavy band and its associated high DOS that prevents efficient doping (shifts of EF). A schematic of the effec￾tive band structure expected for Ru2TiSi, the respective energy gaps and position of the Fermi level is …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Fujimoto, M

    T. Fujimoto, M. Mikami, H. Miyazaki, and Y. Nishino, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 969, 172345 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    T. Graf, C. Felser, and S. S. Parkin, Progress in Solid State Chemistry 39, 1 (2011)

    work page 2011

  3. [2]

    Casper, T

    F. Casper, T. Graf, S. Chadov, B. Balke, and C. Felser, Semiconductor Science and Technology 27, 063001 (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [3]

    Manna, Y

    K. Manna, Y. Sun, L. Muechler, J. K¨ ubler, and C. Felser, Nature Reviews Materials 3, 244 (2018)

    2018

  5. [4]

    Galanakis, P

    I. Galanakis, P. Dederichs, and N. Papanikolaou, Physi- cal Review B 66, 174429 (2002)

    work page 2002

  6. [5]

    Galanakis, P

    I. Galanakis, P. Mavropoulos, and P. H. Dederichs, Jour- nal of Physics D: Applied Physics 39, 765 (2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [6]

    Skaftouros, K

    S. Skaftouros, K. ¨Ozdo˘ gan, E. S ¸a¸ sıo˘ glu, and I. Galanakis, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 87, 024420 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [7]

    Parzer, F

    M. Parzer, F. Garmroudi, A. Riss, S. Khmelevskyi, T. Mori, and E. Bauer, Applied Physics Letters 120 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 52 references
  1. [8]

    Parzer, F

    M. Parzer, F. Garmroudi, A. Riss, M. Reticcioli, R. Pod- loucky, M. St¨ oger-Pollach, E. Constable, A. Pustogow, T. Mori, and E. Bauer, PRX Energy 3, 033006 (2024)

    2024

  2. [9]

    W. G. Zeier, J. Schmitt, G. Hautier, U. Aydemir, Z. M. Gibbs, C. Felser, and G. J. Snyder, Nature Reviews Ma- terials 1, 1 (2016)

    2016

  3. [10]

    Anand, M

    S. Anand, M. Wood, Y. Xia, C. Wolverton, and G. J. Snyder, Joule 3, 1226 (2019)

    2019

  4. [11]

    L. Wang, Z. Dong, S. Tan, J. Zhang, W. Zhang, and J. Luo, Advanced Functional Materials 32, 2200438 (2022)

    2022

  5. [12]

    Zhang, Z

    J. Zhang, Z. Dong, S. Tan, Y. Li, J. Zhang, W. Zhang, and J. Luo, Materials Today Energy 27, 101035 (2022)

    2022

  6. [13]

    G. J. Snyder and E. S. Toberer, Nature materials 7, 105 (2008)

    2008

  7. [14]

    T. Zhu, C. Fu, H. Xie, Y. Liu, and X. Zhao, Advanced Energy Materials 5, 1500588 (2015)

    2015

  8. [15]

    Rogl and P

    G. Rogl and P. F. Rogl, Crystals 13, 1152 (2023)

    2023

  9. [16]

    W. Li, S. Ghosh, N. Liu, and B. Poudel, Joule (2024)

    2024

  10. [17]

    Pecunia, S

    V. Pecunia, S. R. P. Silva, J. D. Phillips, E. Artegiani, A. Romeo, H. Shim, J. Park, J. H. Kim, J. S. Yun, G. C. Welch, et al., Journal of Physics: Materials 6, 042501 (2023)

    2023

  11. [18]

    Nishino, S

    Y. Nishino, S. Deguchi, and U. Mizutani, Physical Re- view B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 74, 115115 (2006)

    2006

  12. [19]

    Garmroudi, M

    F. Garmroudi, M. Parzer, A. Riss, S. Beyer, S. Khmelevskyi, T. Mori, M. Reticcioli, and E. Bauer, Materials Today Physics 27, 100742 (2022)

    2022

  13. [20]

    Alleno, A

    E. Alleno, A. Diack-Rasselio, M. Talla Noutack, and P. Jund, Physical Review Materials 7, 075403 (2023)

    2023

  14. [21]

    Okamura, J

    H. Okamura, J. Kawahara, T. Nanba, S. Kimura, K. Soda, U. Mizutani, Y. Nishino, M. Kato, I. Shi- moyama, H. Miura, et al., Physical review letters 84, 3674 (2000)

    2000

  15. [22]

    Anand, R

    S. Anand, R. Gurunathan, T. Soldi, L. Borgsmiller, R. Orenstein, and G. J. Snyder, Journal of Materials Chemistry C 8, 10174 (2020)

    2020

  16. [23]

    Hinterleitner, F

    B. Hinterleitner, F. Garmroudi, N. Reumann, T. Mori, E. Bauer, and R. Podloucky, Journal of Materials Chem- istry C 9, 2073 (2021)

    2021

  17. [24]

    Lue and Y.-K

    C.-S. Lue and Y.-K. Kuo, Physical Review B 66, 085121 (2002)

    2002

  18. [25]

    Knapp, B

    I. Knapp, B. Budinska, D. Milosavljevic, P. Heinrich, S. Khmelevskyi, R. Moser, R. Podloucky, P. Prenninger, and E. Bauer, Physical Review B 96, 045204 (2017)

    2017

  19. [26]

    Mondal, C

    S. Mondal, C. Mazumdar, R. Ranganathan, E. Alleno, P. Sreeparvathy, V. Kanchana, and G. Vaitheeswaran, Physical Review B 98, 205130 (2018)

    2018

  20. [27]

    Mondal, K

    S. Mondal, K. Ghosh, R. Ranganathan, E. Alleno, and C. Mazumdar, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 961, 171050 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Parzer, A

    M. Parzer, A. Riss, F. Garmroudi, J. de Boor, T. Mori, and E. Bauer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06261 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    E. J. Skoug, C. Zhou, Y. Pei, and D. T. Morelli, Journal of electronic materials 38, 1221 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    Vasundhara, V

    M. Vasundhara, V. Srinivas, and V. Rao, Physical Re- view B 77, 224415 (2008)

    2008

  24. [32]

    Vasundhara, V

    M. Vasundhara, V. Srinivas, and V. Rao, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 17, 6025 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    C. S. Lue, C. Chen, J. Lin, Y. Yu, and Y. Kuo, Physical Review B 75, 064204 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    Nishino et al., in Inst

    Y. Nishino et al., in Inst. Phys. Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng, Vol. 18 (2011) p. 142001

    2011

  27. [35]

    Mikami, K

    M. Mikami, K. Ozaki, H. Takazawa, A. Yamamoto, Y. Terazawa, and T. Takeuchi, Journal of electronic ma- terials 42, 1801 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Nakayama, N

    H. Nakayama, N. Ide, and Y. Nishino, Materials trans- actions 49, 1858 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    Terazawa, M

    Y. Terazawa, M. Mikami, T. Itoh, and T. Takeuchi, Jour- nal of electronic materials 41, 1348 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Mikami, Y

    M. Mikami, Y. Kinemuchi, K. Ozaki, Y. Terazawa, and T. Takeuchi, Journal of Applied Physics 111, 093710 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    H. Kato, M. Kato, Y. Nishino, U. Mizutani, and S. Asano, Nippon Kinzoku Gakkaishi (1952) 65, 652 (2001)

    1952

  32. [40]

    Sandaiji, N

    Y. Sandaiji, N. Ide, Y. Nishino, T. Ohwada, S. Harada, and K. Soda, Funtai Oyobi Funmatsuyakin 57, 207 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    W. Lu, W. Zhang, and L. Chen, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 484, 812 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    Hinterleitner, P

    B. Hinterleitner, P. Fuchs, J. Rehak, F. Garmroudi, M. Parzer, M. Waas, R. Svagera, S. Steiner, M. Kishi- moto, R. Moser, et al., Physical Review B 102, 075117 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Garmroudi, A

    F. Garmroudi, A. Riss, M. Parzer, N. Reumann, 10 H. M¨ uller, E. Bauer, S. Khmelevskyi, R. Podloucky, T. Mori, K. Tobita,et al., Physical Review B103, 085202 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Reumann, A

    N. Reumann, A. Riss, F. Garmroudi, M. Parzer, J. Ko- vacevic, T. Mori, and E. Bauer, Physical Review B 106, 235138 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Computational DOS data were taken from the Materials Project open web database [52]

  38. [46]

    G. Rogl, F. Garmroudi, A. Riss, X. Yan, J. Sereni, E. Bauer, and P. Rogl, Intermetallics146, 107567 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    The valence band at Γ is triply degenerate and the con- duction band comprises sixfold generate half-pockets at X, thus, also equaling N = 3

  40. [48]

    G. J. Snyder, A. H. Snyder, M. Wood, R. Gurunathan, B. H. Snyder, and C. Niu, Advanced Materials 32, 2001537 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Alleno, Metals 8, 864 (2018)

    E. Alleno, Metals 8, 864 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Garmroudi, M

    F. Garmroudi, M. Parzer, A. Riss, A. Pustogow, T. Mori, and E. Bauer, Physical Review B 107, L081108 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    D. I. Bilc, G. Hautier, D. Waroquiers, G.-M. Rignanese, and P. Ghosez, Physical review letters 114, 136601 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    A. Jain, S. P. Ong, G. Hautier, W. Chen, W. D. Richards, S. Dacek, S. Cholia, D. Gunter, D. Skinner, G. Ceder, et al., APL materials 1 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

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