Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Thermoelectric and Magnetic Properties in Doped Fe$_2$VAl within a Bipolar Random Anderson Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Antisite defects flip magnetism on or off by doping type in Fe₂VAl

desk verdict Solid model extension with a parameter-sensitivity problem worth checking read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06878 v1 pith:53H5NPUQ submitted 2026-07-08 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Takami Tohyama , Hidetoshi Fukuyama This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords typemagneticthermoelectricantisitepropertiesandersonbipolardefects
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

This paper argues that antisite defects — atoms sitting on the wrong sublattice sites in the Heusler alloy Fe₂VAl — behave as magnetic switches whose on/off state is controlled by whether the material is doped with electrons (n-type, via Si substitution) or holes (p-type, via Ti substitution). The mechanism is entirely about where the Fermi energy sits relative to the antisite energy levels. In n-type Fe₂VAl, the Fermi energy shifts high enough that both types of antisite defects (vanadium-on-iron sites and iron-on-vanadium sites) straddle it, producing spin polarization and a magnetic moment roughly twice that of the undoped compound. In p-type Fe₂VAl, the Fermi energy drops deep into the valence band, leaving all antisite levels above it, so the antisites carry no magnetic moment at all. The authors build this argument using the bipolar random Anderson model, which treats antisites as randomly distributed Anderson impurities that exchange carriers between the valence and conduction bands while conserving total electron count. The same spectral conductivity that governs the Seebeck coefficient also encodes the scattering signatures of spin-polarized antisites, so thermoelectric transport and magnetism are coupled through a single quantity. The paper shows that antisite scattering suppresses the Seebeck coefficient in n-type material (matching experiments on quenched samples) while leaving p-type material largely unaffected, because without spin polarization the antisites scatter carriers weakly near the Fermi energy.

What carries the argument

The bipolar random Anderson model (BPRAM), which treats V-on-Fe and Fe-on-V antisites as randomly distributed Anderson impurities hybridized with the valence and conduction bands respectively. The self-energy from antisite scattering is computed self-consistently via a T-matrix approximation, and the spin-dependent antisite occupation (which determines magnetism) is determined by whether the antisite energy levels straddle the Fermi energy. The spectral conductivity, which feeds into the Seebeck coefficient via the Sommerfeld-Bethe relation, is deformed by the imaginary part of this self-energy, linking magnetism and thermoelectric transport in a single calculational framework.

What would settle it

Measure the magnetic moment of antisite defects in quenched p-type Fe₂V₁₋ₓTiₓAl. If antisite-induced moments persist despite the Fermi energy sitting below the antisite levels, the rigid-band picture underlying the prediction is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a doping-asymmetry principle: at equal antisite concentration, n-type Fe₂VAl doubles the antisite magnetic moment relative to undoped Fe₂VAl because both V-on-Fe and Fe-on-V antisites become spin-polarized, while p-type Fe₂VAl eliminates antisite magnetism entirely because the Fermi energy drops below all antisite levels. This asymmetry arises from the rigid-band shift of the Fermi energy through a fixed antisite level structure, and it directly couples to thermoelectric transport through the spin-dependent spectral conductivity.

Load-bearing premise

The rigid-band approximation: the band structure is held fixed and carrier doping is modeled purely as a shift of the Fermi energy, while antisite energy levels are assumed to maintain a constant offset (0.16 eV) from the band edges regardless of doping type or concentration. If doping significantly reconstructs the band structure or shifts antisite levels differently than assumed, the predicted spin-polarization contrast between n-type and p-type would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the antisite-level-vs-Fermi-energy mechanism is correct, then any dopant that shifts the Fermi energy in Fe₂VAl — not just Si or Ti — should produce a predictable magnetic response: Fermi energy above both antisite levels means both antisite types are magnetic; below means neither is.
  • The result predicts that quenched p-type Fe₂V₁₋ₓTiₓAl should show no antisite-induced magnetic moment, which is directly testable by comparing magnetization of quenched vs. annealed p-type samples at controlled antisite concentrations.
  • The coupling between spin-polarized antisite scattering and spectral conductivity suggests that engineering antisite concentrations could tune the Seebeck coefficient, offering a defect-engineering route to magneto-thermoelectric control in Heusler alloys.
  • The finding that the power factor in p-type Fe₂VAl is nearly unchanged by antisites (because they do not spin-polarize) implies that p-type material may be more robust against quenching-induced degradation of thermoelectric performance than n-type material.
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. This paper investigates the thermoelectric and magnetic properties of n-type (Si-substituted) and p-type (Ti-substituted) Fe2VAl using the bipolar random Anderson model (BPRAM), previously introduced by the authors. The model treats V-on-Fe and Fe-on-V antisite defects as Anderson impurities in the valence and conduction bands, respectively, with self-consistent T-matrix treatment of spin-dependent self-energies. The central finding is that in n-type Fe2VAl, both antisite types are spin-polarized (yielding a magnetic moment roughly twice that of undoped Fe2VAl at equal antisite concentration), whereas in p-type Fe2VAl, antisite levels lie above the Fermi energy and no spin polarization occurs. The Seebeck coefficient is reduced by antisites in n-type, consistent with experiment, while p-type shows only modest changes. The paper provides a unified framework connecting carrier doping, antisite spin polarization, and thermoelectric transport.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely problem: the interplay between antisite defects, magnetism, and thermoelectricity in Heusler alloys, where experimental data show strong doping-type-dependent magnetic responses. The BPRAM framework is a reasonable extension of the Anderson impurity model to randomly distributed antisites with bipolar charge transfer, and the self-consistent T-matrix approach is standard. The qualitative prediction—that spin polarization of antisites depends on the relative position of antisite levels to the Fermi energy, which is shifted by carrier doping—is physically transparent and falsifiable. The systematic comparison of n-type and p-type within the same model is a genuine contribution. However, the quantitative thermoelectric results depend on a substantial number of fitted parameters (band gap, Fermi energy, scattering rates, spectral-conductivity prefactors), and the central qualitative contrast between n-type and p-type rests on energy margins that are small relative to the model's own parameter uncertainties, as detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. Sect. 3, parameters for antisite levels: The headline finding—that Fe_V antisites are spin-polarized in n-type but not in p-type Fe2VAl—depends on the sign of (ε_F − ε_d^c). For n-type, ε_F = −0.062 eV and ε_d^c = −0.072 eV, giving a margin of only 0.010 eV. For p-type, ε_F = −0.149 eV and ε_d^c = −0.12 eV, giving a margin of 0.029 eV. Both margins are smaller than or comparable to k_BT at 300 K (~0.025 eV) and far smaller than typical uncertainties in defect level positions. The assumed constant offset of 0.16 eV from the band edge is an axiom of the model, not derived from first principles. A sensitivity analysis varying this offset by ±0.02 eV (or equivalently varying ε_F or E_g by comparable amounts) is essential to establish whether the qualitative n-type vs. p-type contrast is robust. Without it, the central claim could be an artifact of parameter choice at the 1% level.
  2. Sect. 3, derivation of E_g and ε_F with antisites: The values E_g = −0.232 eV and ε_F = −0.062 eV for n-type, and E_g = −0.28 eV and ε_F = −0.149 eV for p-type, are stated to arise from the bipolar charge-conservation condition together with carrier doping, but the derivation is not shown. Given that these values are load-bearing for the spin-polarization contrast (Major Comment 1), the authors should either provide the explicit charge-conservation equations and their solution, or demonstrate robustness of the qualitative result to reasonable variation in these parameters.
  3. Sect. 3, Fig. 4(b): The calculated Seebeck coefficient S for n-type Fe2VAl with antisites becomes positive above ~300 K, contradicting the experimental observation of negative S in quenched Fe2VAl0.9Si0.1 (blue dotted line). The authors attribute this to a possible modification of γ_e-p due to antisites, but this is speculative. Since the reduction of |S| by antisites at low temperatures is presented as a key result consistent with experiment, the failure at high temperatures weakens the quantitative claim. The authors should either show that a physically reasonable adjustment of γ_e-p resolves the discrepancy quantitatively, or more clearly delineate the temperature range where the model's predictions are reliable.
minor comments (5)
  1. Sect. 2, paragraph on parameters: The statement 'The parameters δ0 and γ_e-p, together with ε_F, are determined so as to reproduce the experimentally observed ρ for x∼0.1' should specify which experimental data set (reference) and what temperature range was used for the fit.
  2. Fig. 2(c) and Fig. 3(c): The calculated S for p-type Fe2VAl is noted to be smaller than experiment at low T and the authors suggest checking the high-T trend experimentally. It would help to state the expected experimental composition (x value) corresponding to the calculation.
  3. Fig. 9: The calculated PF of p-type exceeds that of n-type, opposite to experiment. The explanation given (calculated S is too large for p-type and too small for n-type) is honest but suggests the model's quantitative predictive power for PF is limited. A brief statement acknowledging this limitation in the main text, rather than only in the figure caption context, would improve clarity.
  4. Sect. 3, last paragraph before Sect. 4: The sentence 'Both V_Fe and Fe_V have spin polarization, since energies of their down- and up-spin states with ε_F in between' appears to have a grammatical issue. Please revise for clarity.
  5. The paper uses 'BPRAM' as an acronym defined only by reference to Ref. 25. A one-sentence definition in the introduction (beyond 'which has been introduced recently') would improve self-containedness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; one minor self-citation providing the model framework, with qualitative magnetic predictions being genuine model outputs rather than fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central qualitative claim — that antisite spin polarization differs between n-type and p-type Fe₂VAl — is a genuine consequence of Anderson-model physics (Coulomb-split antisite levels straddling ε_F or not), not a quantity that was fitted and then re-presented as a prediction. The BPRAM framework (Ref. 25, same authors) supplies the model Hamiltonian and self-consistent T-matrix equation, but these are standard approximations applied to new physical cases; the self-citation provides a framework, not a result being proven. Transport parameters (F_v, F_c, δ₀, γ_e-p, E_g, ε_F) are explicitly stated as fitted to experimental ρ and S data, and the paper does not claim to 'predict' those fitted quantities. The magnetic moment predictions are outputs of the model with transport-fitted parameters, not renamings of fitted magnetic data. The 0.16 eV constant-offset ansatz is stated openly as an assumption, not smuggled via citation. The parameter-sensitivity concern (the ~0.01 eV margin determining spin polarization in n-type) is a real correctness/robustness risk but is not a circularity issue — the conclusion does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 17 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper carries a large number of fitted parameters (17 listed), many inherited from prior work (Ref. 25). The central qualitative claim about spin polarization contrast depends on the rigid-band approximation and the assumed constant antisite energy offset, both of which are domain assumptions rather than first-principles results. The BPRAM itself is an invented framework but has independent experimental support.

free parameters (17)
  • E_g (undoped) = -0.03 eV
    Band gap parameter chosen to match experimental S and ρ in undoped Fe₂VAl (Ref. 25)
  • E_g (n-type) = 0 eV
    Set to zero based on first-principles results for x=0.1 showing small gap increase
  • E_g (p-type) = 0 eV
    Set to zero based on expected upward shift of conduction band from Ti substitution
  • ε_F (n-type, no antisites) = 0.08 eV
    Fermi energy position chosen to reproduce experimental transport for x~0.1
  • F_v = 7.0 eV
    Spectral conductivity prefactor determined to reproduce thermoelectric properties (Ref. 25)
  • F_c = 11.2 eV
    Spectral conductivity prefactor determined to reproduce thermoelectric properties (Ref. 25)
  • δ₀ = 0.1 meV
    Intrinsic scattering rate chosen to reproduce experimental ρ for x~0.1
  • γ_e-p (carrier band) = 1.38×10⁻⁶ eV/K
    Electron-phonon scattering rate coefficient fitted to experimental ρ
  • γ_e-p (non-carrier band) = 0.63×10⁻⁶ eV/K
    Electron-phonon scattering rate for the non-carrier band
  • c_i = 0.01
    Antisite concentration assumed, same as prior work (Ref. 25)
  • U_d (both bands) = 0.2 eV
    On-site Coulomb interaction at antisites, from prior work (Ref. 25)
  • V (both bands) = 0.1 eV
    Hybridization between mobile and antisite electrons, from prior work (Ref. 25)
  • Antisite energy offset = 0.16 eV
    Energy offset of antisite levels from band edges, assumed constant across doping types
  • E_g (n-type, with antisites) = -0.232 eV
    Gap set to satisfy bipolar charge transfer condition with carrier doping
  • E_g (p-type, with antisites) = -0.28 eV
    Gap set to satisfy bipolar charge transfer condition with carrier doping
  • ε_F (n-type, with antisites) = -0.062 eV
    Fermi energy for antisite calculation
  • ε_F (p-type, with antisites) = -0.149 eV
    Fermi energy for antisite calculation
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Rigid-band approximation: carrier doping shifts ε_F without changing band structure
    Stated in Sect. 2: Si substitution 'results in a shift of ε_F toward higher energies.' Band shapes are held fixed.
  • domain assumption No direct interplay between valence and conduction bands due to different momenta (Γ vs X)
    Sect. 2: 'we assume that there is no direct interplay between the two bands'
  • ad hoc to paper Antisite energy levels maintain constant offset from band edges regardless of doping
    Sect. 3: 'we assume that their energy offsets from the top of the valence band and from the bottom of the conduction band remain constant and independent of carrier doping'
  • domain assumption Equal concentration of V_Fe and Fe_V antisites
    Sect. 3: 'Assuming that Fe_V and V_Fe are present in equal concentrations'
  • domain assumption Phonon-drag contribution to thermoelectric conductivity is negligible
    Sect. 2: 'the phonon-drag contribution is expected to be small in the present system and is neglected'
  • domain assumption Single-site approximation for antisite defects is valid
    Sect. 3, Eq. 8: self-consistent T-matrix with single-site approximation
  • domain assumption Magnetic ordering effects are negligible at temperatures considered
    Sect. 2: 'effects of magnetic ordering are not considered in the present study, since they are expected to become significant only at low temperatures'
invented entities (1)
  • Bipolar Random Anderson Model (BPRAM) independent evidence
    purpose: Framework treating antisite defects as randomly distributed Anderson impurities in both valence and conduction bands with charge redistribution
    The model makes falsifiable predictions about S sign changes and magnetic moment magnitudes that are compared against external experimental data (Refs. 20, 21). It was introduced in Ref. 25 and is extended here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermoelectric and Magnetic Properties in Doped Fe$_2$VAl within a Bipolar Random Anderson Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/53H5NPUQ

@misc{pith2026260706878,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermoelectric and Magnetic Properties in Doped Fe$_2$VAl within a Bipolar Random Anderson Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/53H5NPUQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06878}
}
abstract

We investigate the thermoelectric and magnetic properties of Si-substituted $n$-type and Ti-substituted $p$-type Heusler alloy Fe$_2$VAl using the bipolar random Anderson model, which has been introduced recently to study antisite-defect effects associated with the sign change of the Seebeck coefficient in thermally quenched Fe$_2$VAl. Based on the electronic states of both $n$-type and $p$-type compounds, with the rigid-band shift of the Fermi energy and a temperature-dependent scattering rate taken into account, we elucidate how antisite defects simultaneously influence thermoelectric transport and local magnetic moments. We find that the magnetic moments are enhanced in $n$-type Fe$_2$VAl, whereas they are suppressed in $p$-type Fe$_2$VAl compared with the undoped compound. These contrasting magnetic responses highlight the impact of antisite spin polarization on thermoelectric properties and demonstrate the crucial role of antisite defects in realizing magneto-thermoelectric functionalities in Heusler-type alloys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06878 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the electronic states in Fe2VAl. (a) undoped Fe2VAl, (b) n-type and (c) p-type Fe2VAl. The valence band around the Γ point is predominantly composed of Fe 3d orbitals with a degeneracy of ν v = 2, whereas the conduction band near the X point mainly consists of V 3d orbitals with a degeneracy of ν c = 1. The top of the valence band is set as the energy reference. The Fermi energy εF is indic… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Color online) Electronic states and transport properties in n-type Fe2VAl. (a) Total DOS per spin. The energy zero is set at the top of the va￾lence band. The inset shows the zero-temperature total spectral conductivity σ t s per spin. The vertical line denotes the position of the Fermi energy εF. (b) Temperature dependence of the resistivity ρ. (c) Temperature dependence of the Seebeck coefficient S . The red line… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (Color online) Temperature dependence of (a) the calculated resis￾tivity ρ and (b) the Seebeck coefficient S in the BPRAM for n-type Fe2VAl with antisite defects (red solid lines). The blue dashed lines correspond to ex￾perimental data for quenched Fe2VAl0.9Si0.1 containing antisites.20) For com￾parison, the results without antisite defects, identical to the red solid lines in Figs. 2(b) and 2(c), are shown by black… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Color online) Temperature dependence of (a) the calculated resis￾tivity ρ and (b) the Seebeck coefficient S in the BPRAM for p-type Fe2VAl with antisite defects (red solid lines). For comparison, the results without an￾tisite defects, identical to the red solid lines …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Color online) Electronic states of p-type Fe2VAl with antisite de￾fects obtained by the BPRAM. No spin polarization is present. (a) DOS per spin for the total electrons (black solid line), valence electrons (red dashed line), and conduction electrons (blue dash-dotted…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: summarizes the schematic electronic states in Fe2VAl with antisite defects (the right side of the vertical en￾ergy axis). From this illustration, we can predict that antisite￾induced magnetic moments decrease from n-type to p-type Fe2VAl, provided that the antisite con…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (Color online) Calculated power factor (PF) of undoped and doped Fe2VAl with (solid lines) and without (dashed lines) antisite defects. The black, red, and blue lines represent the results for undoped, n-type, and p￾type Fe2VAl, respectively. are not taken into account…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introduction The Heusler-type intermetallic Fe 2V Al-based compounds are known as promising candidates for thermoelectric mate- rials.1) Stoichiometric Fe2V Al is nonmagnetic semimetal and the valence-band maximum is located at theΓpoint, while the conduction-band minimum lies at the X point, with a small band overlap between them, 2–5) resulting in a pse...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    25) Fig- ure 1(a) illustrates this model

    Thermoelectric Properties in doped Fe 2V Al First-principles electronic structure calculations based on the local density approximation or generalized gradient ap- proximation for Fe 2V Al have shown a negative band gap, Eg <0, in which the valence-band maximum atΓlies higher in energy than the conduction-band minimum at X.2–5) A two- band model withE g =...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Doped Fe 2V Al with antisite defects Thermal quenching of Fe 2V Al-based compounds induces antisite defects.20, 21, 23)Among these defects, we focus on FeV and VFe antisites, which affect the underlying electronic states in the valence V 3dand conduction Fe 3dband, respectively. An FeV (VFe) antisite can be regarded as an impurity in the valence (conducti...

    work page

  4. [4]

    In our previous work,25) we found that VFe is spin-polarized whereas FeV is not in undoped Fe2V Al

    Summary and discussions Spin polarization of antisite defects gives rise to magnetic moments in Fe 2V Al. In our previous work,25) we found that VFe is spin-polarized whereas FeV is not in undoped Fe2V Al. In this paper, we show that both V Fe and Fe V are spin- polarized inn-type Fe 2V Al, while neither of them is polarized inp-type Fe 2V Al, as discusse...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Nishino, Mater

    Y . Nishino, Mater. Sci. Eng.18, 142001 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    G. Y . Guo, G. A. Botton, and Y . Nishino, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter10, L119 (1998)

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    D. J. Singh and I. I. Mazin, Phys. Rev. B57, 14352 (1998)

    work page 1998

  8. [8]

    Weht and W

    R. Weht and W. E. Pickett, Phys. Rev. B58, 6855 (1998)

    work page 1998

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Weinert and R

    M. Weinert and R. E. Watson, Phys. Rev. B58, 9732 (1998)

    1998

  2. [10]

    Nishino, M

    Y . Nishino, M. Kato, S. Asano, K. Soda, M. Hayasaki, and U. Mizutani, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 1909 (1997)

    1909

  3. [11]

    Okamura, J

    H. Okamura, J. Kawahara, T. Nanba, S. Kimura, K. Soda, U. Mizutani, Y . Nishino, M. Kato, I. Shimoyama, H. Miura, K. Fukui, K. Nakagawa, H. Nakagawa, and T. Kinoshita, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 3674 (2000)

    2000

  4. [12]

    Nishino, H

    Y . Nishino, H. Kato, and M. Kato, and U. Mizutani, Phys. Rev. B63, 233303 (2001)

    2001

  5. [13]

    H. Kato, M. Kato, Y . Nishino, U. Mizutani, and S. Asano, J. Japan Inst. Metals65, 652 (2001)

    2001

  6. [14]

    C. S. Lue, C. F. Chen, J. Y . Lin, Y . T. Yu, and Y . K. Kuo, Phys. Rev. B 75, 064204 (2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    Matsuura, Y

    H. Matsuura, Y . Nishino, U. Mizutani, and S. Asano, J. Japan Inst. Met- als,66, 767 (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    ´Slebarski, J

    A. ´Slebarski, J. Goraus, J. Deniszczyk, and Ł. Skocze ´n, J. Phys.: Con- dens. Matter18, 10319 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    Nakayama, N

    H. Nakayama, N. Ide, and Y . Nishino, Materi. Transac.49, 1858 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    R. Jha, N. Tsujii, F. Garmroudi, S. Khmelevskyi, E. Bauer, and T. Mori, J. Mater. Chem. C,12, 8861 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Garmroudi, A

    F. Garmroudi, A. Riss, M. Parzer, N. Reumann, H. M ¨uller, E. Bauer, S. Khmelevskyi, R. Podloucky, T. Mori, K. Tobita, Y . Katsura, and K. Kimura, Phys. Rev. B103, 085202 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    H. Sato, H. Miyazaki, Y . Nishino, and U. Mizutani, J. Phase Equilib. Diffus.24, 397 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Jemima, A

    S. Jemima, A. Mani, A. Bharathi, N. Ravindran,and Y . Hariharan, J. Alloys Compd.326, 183 (2001)

    2001

  14. [22]

    E. P. Amaladass, A. T. Satya, S. Sharma, K. Vinod, V . Srinivas, C. S. Sundar, and A. Bharathi, J. Alloys Compd.648, 34 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Tsujii, A

    N. Tsujii, A. Nishide, J. Hayakawa, and T. Mori, Sci. Adv.5, eaat5935 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Garmroudi, M

    F. Garmroudi, M. Parzer, M. Knopf, A. Riss, H. Michor, A. V . Ruban, T. Mori, and E. Bauer, Phys. Rev. B107, 014108 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Garmroudi, M

    F. Garmroudi, M. Parzer, A. Riss, A. V . Ruban, S. Khmelevskyi, M. Ret- iccioli, M. Knopf, H. Michor, A. Pustogow, T. Mori, and E. Bauer, Nat. Commun.13, 3599 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Hiroi, M

    S. Hiroi, M. Mikami, and T. Takeuchi, Materi. Transac.,57, 1628 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Zhang, C

    F.X. Zhang, C. Feng, Z. Guan, H. Song, S. Nan, Y . Tang, H. Yang, K. Zeng, X. Yuan, M. Xiao, Z. Lu, Y . Zhang, D. Ma, and Y . Zhang, Acta Materi.292, 121056 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev.124, 41 (1961)

    1961

  21. [29]

    Tohyama and H

    T. Tohyama and H. Fukuyama, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.94, 094603 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Fukuyama, Prog

    H. Fukuyama, Prog. Theor. Phys.44, 879 (1970)

    1970

  23. [31]

    N. W. Aschcroft and N. D. Mermin, Solid State Physics (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1976), p.254

    1976

  24. [32]

    Ogata and F

    M. Ogata and F. Fukuyama, J. Phys. Sco. Jpn.88, 074703 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Matsubara, T

    M. Matsubara, T. Yamamoto, and H. Fukuyama, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.94, 024601 (2025). 7

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.