Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 44 references

The New High-entropy Compound RhMnFeCoGe4 with Cubic Non-centrosymmetric B20 Structure

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports that a four-metal high-entropy compound, RhMnFeCoGe4, forms in the non-centrosymmetric cubic B20 structure and orders ferromagnetically at 146 K with a spontaneous moment of 2.5 μB per formula unit; compression initially r

desk verdict New B20 high-entropy germanide with a plausible 146 K ferromagnetic transition, but the unsubtracted Fe1.67Ge impurity and circular critical-exponent analysis mean the quantitative claims need a second pass. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03523 v1 pith:DFPC2NGG submitted 2026-08-04 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-el

V. A. Sidorov , V. N. Krasnorussky , A. V. Bokov , Z. N. Volkova , A. P. Gerashchenko , N. M. Chtchelkatchev , M. V. Magnitskaya , D. A. Salamatin
show 3 more authors
A. V. Semeno V. V. Brazhkin A. V. Tsvyashchenko
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el
keywords high-entropycompoundB20structureferromagnetismCurietemperaturehighpressurecriticalexponentsNMRabinitioDFT
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 authors set out to extend the B20 family of chiral magnets into high-entropy compounds by placing four different transition metals on one crystallographic sublattice. They show that RhMnFeCoGe4 can be synthesized at 8 GPa in a cubic non-centrosymmetric B20 structure, and that it is a soft ferromagnet with TC = 146 K, spontaneous moment 2.5 μB per formula unit, and critical exponents close to 3D Ising values. NMR resolves element-specific moments (Mn about 2.2 μB, Co about 0.5 μB), and density-functional calculations reproduce the lattice constant and the general moment pattern. High-pressure susceptibility shows an initial dTC/dP = +1.9 K/GPa, opposite in sign to binary B20 germanides such as FeGe and MnGe. If these results hold, the B20 high-entropy route offers a way around the usual trade-off between high ordering temperature and small chiral or spiral period in B20 magnets.

What carries the argument

The central object is the B20 structure: a cubic, non-centrosymmetric arrangement of two interpenetrating tetrahedra, one of four transition-metal atoms and one of four germanium atoms. In RhMnFeCoGe4 the 4a metal site is randomly occupied by Rh, Mn, Fe and Co, which is what makes the compound high-entropy. This site disorder and the accompanying lattice distortion are the mechanism the authors invoke to produce a ferromagnetic ground state with a relatively high Curie temperature and a positive pressure shift of TC, contrasting with the pressure-suppressed magnetism of the parent binaries.

What would settle it

Collect neutron-diffraction or element-selective magnetization data on the same high-pressure sample across 100–200 K. If the magnetic Bragg peaks index to the Fe1.67Ge (Ni2In-type) impurity rather than to the B20 lattice, or if a sample from which the impurity has been removed loses the 146 K transition, the central claim fails. A simpler check is to synthesize Fe1.67Ge alone and compare its magnetization, TC, and pressure shift with the signal assigned to the B20 phase.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At 8 GPa and high temperature, the authors synthesized the compound RhMnFeCoGe4 with the cubic B20 structure, in which Rh, Mn, Fe and Co share the 4a transition-metal site with equal probability while Ge occupies the other 4a site. Magnetization and susceptibility show a ferromagnetic transition at TC = 146 ± 1 K with a spontaneous moment of 2.5 μB per formula unit at 2 K and essentially no hysteresis; a modified Arrott-plot analysis gives β = 0.337, γ = 1.121, and δ = 4.326 via the Widom relation, with short-range order appearing above TC near 250 K. Zero-field NMR identifies Mn and Co moments of about 2.2 and 0.5 μB, and ab initio calculations give a lattice constant about 1% smaller than

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ferromagnetic transition at 146 K and the pressure response belong to the B20 RhMnFeCoGe4 phase itself, rather than to the few weight-percent Fe1.67Ge impurity phase whose peaks appear in the same X-ray pattern.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 146 K transition is intrinsic, non-centrosymmetric B20 magnets can be made with four metals on one site, extending the search space for chiral magnets beyond binary and pseudobinary compounds.
  • The measured critical exponents place the transition near 3D Ising behavior, so the random-site compound behaves as a disordered Ising-like ferromagnet rather than a mean-field one.
  • The positive initial dTC/dP = 1.9 K/GPa, opposite to FeGe and MnGe, means chemical substitution into the B20 sublattice can reverse the pressure response of magnetism.
  • The kink at μ0HC2 ≈ 60 mT in low-field magnetization, analogous to MnSi's Hc2, suggests a helical or skyrmion-host candidate in this high-entropy system, though neutron scattering is needed to confirm.
  • NMR and density-functional theory together give a site-resolved picture dominated by Mn and Fe moments, making the compound a benchmark for high-entropy B20 systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the intrinsic ferromagnetism is confirmed on a phase-pure sample, varying the Co/Fe ratio on the four-metal sublattice is a direct test of whether TC and dTC/dP can be tuned continuously in B20 high-entropy compounds.
  • Beyond the paper: the few weight-percent Fe1.67Ge impurity flagged in the X-ray pattern could contribute a magnetic signal near 146 K; element-selective magnetization or neutron diffraction on the same sample would settle whether the reported exponents belong to the B20 phase.
  • Beyond the paper: the positive pressure coefficient, if it reflects magnetovolume coupling in a disordered lattice, suggests that chemical pressure from larger substituents might raise TC further without applying external pressure.
  • Beyond the paper: the absence of hysteresis and the very low coercivity at 2 K suggest possible use as a soft magnet or spin-source layer if thin films of this B20 phase can be grown.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the high-pressure synthesis of a new high-entropy compound, RhMnFeCoGe4, in the cubic non-centrosymmetric B20 structure, and characterizes it by X-ray diffraction, magnetization, AC susceptibility, resistivity, zero-field 55Mn NMR, and ab initio calculations. The main claims are that the compound is a ferromagnet with TC = 146 K, a spontaneous moment of 2.5 μB/f.u. at 2 K, critical exponents β = 0.337, γ = 1.121, and δ = 4.326, a positive initial pressure coefficient dTC/dP = 1.9 K/GPa, and Mn/Co moments of 2.2 μB and 0.5 μB from NMR. DFT calculations reproduce the lattice constant and give a moment of 3.2 μB/f.u., close to the experimental value.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, the paper introduces a new B20 high-entropy chiral magnet, extending high-entropy alloys to a non-centrosymmetric host and providing a platform for skyrmion physics. The combination of high-pressure synthesis, bulk characterization, NMR, and DFT is a useful approach, and the structural refinement and band-structure calculations are concrete contributions. However, the quantitative magnetic results — TC, the ordered moment, the critical exponents, and the pressure effect — are extracted from bulk measurements on a sample that the paper itself reports contains a few wt.% of the magnetic impurity Fe1.67Ge. The critical-exponent analysis is also partly circular. These load-bearing issues must be resolved before the phenomenological claims can be accepted; the paper's value currently lies more in the synthesis and structural identification than in the magnetic characterization.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1–§3.4] The paper first states the samples are “single-phase” (Sec. 3.1) and then immediately reports “few wt. % of the impurity phase of Fe1.67Ge.” All quantitative magnetic results — TC = 146 K, Ms = 2.5 μB/f.u., dTC/dP = 1.9 K/GPa, and the critical exponents — are bulk magnetization/susceptibility values measured on this composite. Fe1.67Ge is a known magnetic iron germanide (Refs. 22–24); even a few weight percent can produce a substantial low-field signal, a spurious transition-like feature, or a significant offset in the spontaneous moment. No impurity-subtracted data, reference measurement on Fe1.67Ge, or element-specific magnetic probe (e.g., XMCD, neutron diffraction) is provided to separate the contributions. Therefore the intrinsic nature of TC = 146 K and the other quantitative magnetic claims is not established.
  2. [§3.4, Eqs. (1)–(3)] The critical exponents are obtained by an iterative self-consistent fit of the same M(H,T) isotherms: a modified Arrott plot with β and γ is used to extract MS(T) and χ−1(T), which are then fitted to Eqs. (1) and (2) to obtain new β and γ. This is a recognized technique, but the reported uncertainties (β = 0.337±0.001, γ = 1.121±0.001) are the convergence tolerance of the iteration, not statistical uncertainties from fitting; no goodness-of-fit criteria or confidence intervals are reported. Moreover, δ = 4.326 is computed from the Widom relation and then “verified” by comparing Eq. (3) with the M(μ0H) isotherm at T = 145 K from the same dataset. This verification is circular because both the exponent and the isotherm are outputs of the same fitting procedure. A global scaling analysis (M = ε^β f±(H/ε^{β+γ})) with proper error propagation, and an independent isotherm fit at TC to obtain δ
  3. [§3.5] The NMR-derived moments are model-dependent. The Mn moment of 2.2 μB is obtained by scaling the 55Mn resonance frequency with the hyperfine constant A = −106 kOe/μB taken from MnGe, with no quantitative discussion of how the high-entropy local environment changes A. The Co moment of 0.5 μB is obtained using a generic constant A ≈ −100 kOe/μB per 3d electron, which is an order-of-magnitude estimate. These assumptions are acknowledged, but the resulting moments are then compared with DFT and presented as experimental support. The comparison is not a validation. The moments should be labeled as model-dependent estimates, or complemented by an independent determination (e.g., XMCD or neutron diffraction).
  4. [§3.3 and Fig. 3] The spontaneous magnetization is extracted by intersecting a tangent line to the M(μ0H) curve at 9 T with the ordinate axis. This is a nonstandard procedure, and because the magnetization does not fully saturate (Fig. 3a), the value 2.5 μB/f.u. carries an unquantified systematic uncertainty. The observed spontaneous magnetization below 250 K and the 60 mT kink (Figs. 3b and 5) are derived from the same bulk data. In a sample containing a few wt.% of Fe1.67Ge, these features cannot be assigned to the B20 phase without phase-specific measurements or an explicit impurity subtraction.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1] The term “single-phase” is inconsistent with the reported Fe1.67Ge peaks; rephrase to “majority B20 phase with a few wt.% Fe1.67Ge impurity.”
  2. [Figures 2–12] Many figure captions and axis labels contain garbled LaTeX/macros (e.g., “/s48”, “/s109”), making them unreadable in the preprint. The figures should be regenerated cleanly.
  3. [§3.6] The resistivity derivative is said to show a “sharp transition at TC = 150 K,” while the magnetic TC is 146 K (Sec. 3.4) and 146–150 K elsewhere. Clarify the definition and whether the difference is within uncertainty.
  4. [§3.7] TC under pressure is defined by a “sharp rise” in the susceptibility, which may differ from the critical-analysis TC. State the criterion explicitly and estimate the associated systematic error.
  5. [References] Ref. [39] (a photocatalytic oxidation paper) appears unrelated to the hyperfine constant A = −110 kOe/μB cited in Sec. 3.5; please verify. Ref. [22] has an incomplete title.
  6. [§3.4] The phrase “excellent precision... a consequence of the convergence” is misleading; convergence tolerances are not statistical uncertainties. Please replace with proper fit uncertainties.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Critical-exponent verification reduces to the same magnetization fit; central synthesis and ferromagnetism claims remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.4, Eqs. (1)-(3), Fig. 9]
    "The critical exponents β and γ are related to the third critical exponent δ through the Widom relation: δ = 1 + γ/β. Accordingly, the value of δ for the RhMnFeCoGe4 compound can be determined to be 4.326 ± 0.001. ... Figure 9 illustrates the magnetization curve M(µ0H) of the RhMnFeCoGe4 compound at T = 145 K (black line). The red line represents a calculated curve generated using the equation 3 with δ = 4.326. ... It can be seen that the equation 3 accurately describes the experimental M(µ0H) data at T = TC in high magnetic fields, as expected."

    β and γ were not independent inputs but were obtained from the very same magnetization isotherms by iterative modified-Arrott fitting (25 iterations until convergence of β, γ and TC). With those fitted values, the modified-Arrott form at T = TC already forces M ∝ H^{β/(β+γ)} = H^{1/δ} for δ = 1 + γ/β. Therefore the red curve in Fig. 9 generated from Eq. (3) with δ = 4.326 is a restatement of the same fitted scaling, not a separate prediction. The agreement with the black M(H) isotherm is a self-consistency check, so the conclusion 'the Widom relation is an effective tool' is not supported by independent evidence.

full rationale

Most of the paper is a self-contained experimental and DFT study of a newly synthesized B20 high-entropy phase. The synthesis, XRD structural assignment, bulk ferromagnetic transition, pressure dependence, and DFT band structure are not circular: they are new measurements and calculations compared with prior binary B20 data. The one genuinely self-referential link is in the critical-behavior section: β, γ, and TC are obtained by iterative modified-Arrott fits to the magnetization isotherms, and δ is then computed from β and γ via the Widom relation; the 'calculated curve' of Eq. (3) using that δ is overlaid on the same isotherms and presented as confirmation. Since the modified-Arrott equation at TC with the fitted β and γ algebraically implies the same H^{1/δ} law, this is a consistency check rather than an independent verification. The NMR-derived moments also rely on an assumed hyperfine constant borrowed from MnGe, but this is an explicit assumption, not a circular derivation. The admitted few wt.% Fe1.67Ge impurity is a serious attribution risk for the bulk magnetic quantities, but it is a validity/contamination concern, not a circularity. Overall, the central discovery claim has independent content; only the critical-exponent 'verification' is internally self-supporting, giving a partial-circularity score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental claims rest primarily on phase purity, the modified Arrott-plot scaling analysis, and two transferred hyperfine constants. These are all assumptions or fitted quantities rather than independently verified inputs, and the impurity phase is acknowledged but not subtracted.

free parameters (3)
  • Manganese hyperfine constant A_Mn = -106 kOe/µB (assumed from MnGe)
    Used to convert the 55Mn NMR resonance frequency to the Mn moment of 2.2 µB; the paper explicitly assumes the constant is unchanged in RhMnFeCoGe4 (Section 3.5).
  • Cobalt hyperfine constant A_Co = ~ -100 kOe/µB (taken from Freeman-Watson estimate)
    Used with the 53 MHz NMR peak to obtain the Co moment of 0.5 µB; the peak assignment to 59Co rather than 57Fe is itself uncertain (Section 3.5).
  • Critical exponents and TC = β = 0.337, γ = 1.121, TC = 146 K
    Obtained by iterative modified Arrott-plot analysis of the same magnetization isotherms; quoted errors are convergence limits, not statistical uncertainties (Section 3.4).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Magnetization isotherms in the critical region obey the scaling equation of state underlying modified Arrott plots.
    Section 3.4 uses this to extract β, γ, and TC; it requires the high-field data to be in the asymptotic critical regime, which is not independently established.
  • standard math The Widom relation δ = 1 + γ/β holds for this transition.
    Used in Section 3.4 to derive δ = 4.326 from the fitted β and γ; the subsequent check against Eq. (3) uses the same magnetization data.
  • domain assumption Rh, Mn, Fe, and Co occupy the B20 4a site with equal probabilities in a random high-entropy configuration.
    Section 3.1 models the XRD data this way, but no local-probe evidence such as EXAFS, Mössbauer, or neutron diffraction supports the randomness.
  • domain assumption The Fe1.67Ge impurity (few wt.%) does not materially affect the measured magnetization and TC.
    Section 3.1 reports the impurity peaks; Sections 3.2 through 3.7 analyze the bulk magnetization without subtracting any impurity contribution.
  • domain assumption The MnGe hyperfine constant A_Mn applies to RhMnFeCoGe4.
    Section 3.5 states it is reasonable to assume the hyperfine constants do not differ significantly between MnGe and RhMnFeCoGe4.
  • domain assumption DFT with PBE-GGA and an idealized ordered structure captures the essential magnetic ground state.
    Section 3.8 uses VASP and WIEN2k to model moments and compares with experiment; discrepancies are attributed to disorder and microstresses, which the model cannot treat directly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The New High-entropy Compound RhMnFeCoGe4 with Cubic Non-centrosymmetric B20 Structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DFPC2NGG

@misc{pith2026260803523,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The New High-entropy Compound RhMnFeCoGe4 with Cubic Non-centrosymmetric B20 Structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DFPC2NGG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03523}
}
abstract

A novel high-entropy compound, RhMnFeCoGe$_4$, with a cubic non-centrosymmetric B20 struc- ture, has been synthesized under conditions of high pressure and temperature. The electrical transport and magnetic properties of the obtained compound at both ambient and elevated pres- sures have been investigated. In addition, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectra were obtained at 4.2 K and ab initio calculations were performed. The new material exhibits ferromag- netic behavior with a critical temperature of $T_C$ = 146 K and a spontaneous moment of 2.5 $\mu_B$ per formula unit. The magnetization data obtained at the critical region yielded the critical temperature and exponents, which were found to be $T_C$ = 146(1) K, $\beta$ = 0.337(1), $\gamma$ = 1.121(1), and $\delta$ = 4.326(1). The magnetic moments of Mn and Co were determined from NMR spectra to be 2.2 $\mu_B$ and 0.5 $\mu_B$, respectively. Ab initio calculations yielded reasonable values for the lattice parameter and the magnetic moments of all constituents. The density of states and band structure are determined for both paramagnetic and ferromagnetic states. Lattice compression results in the increase in the $T_C$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03523 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The XRD pattern of the RhMnFeCoGe4 compound. The blue dots represent the experimental data, the red line - fitting by Rietveld method, the gray line depicts the difference between the experiment and fitting, and the green ticks indicate the Bragg positions for the B20 structure. Asterisks denote the most intense peaks from the Fe1.67Ge impurity. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The temperature dependence of the magnetic susceptibility M/(µ0H) of the RhMnFeCoGe4 compound (left scale), measured in a field of µ0H = 0.01 T, and inverse magnetic susceptibility χ −1 = (µ0H)/M as a function of temperature (right scale). Red line - is a Curie-Weiss fit of χ −1 in a linear high-T region with µe f f = 4.0 µB/ f.u. and Curie-Weiss temperature Θ = 186 K. effective moment can be obtained from the const… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Isotherms of magnetization of the RhMnFeCoGe4 compound for temperatures in the range 2-260 K (panel a), spontaneous magnetization MS , obtained at µ0H = 9 T as a function of temperature (panel b). as the temperature is reduced, the short-range order phase emerges before the ordering state becomes established at TC ∼ 150 K. As illustrated in Fig. 3b, the spontaneous magnetic moment at T = 2 K is 2.5 µB per formula un… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The magnetization of the RhMnFeCoGe4 compound, obtained at T = 2.0 K. Inset - an expanded region in proximity of µ0H = 0. The numbered arrows illustrate the variation in µ0H, which is represented by the following sequence: 1) an initial increase up to 9 T (black line),…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The magnetic phase diagram of the RhMnFeCoGe4 compound. The points were identified as local minimums of the second derivative of the magnetization curve, the line is a guide for the eye. Inset demonstrate M(µ0H) (points) and d 2M/d(µ0H) 2 (line) dependencies as a funct…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: M2 vesus H/M (Arrott plot) for RhMnFeCoGe4 compound at various temperatures. the origin. The Arrott plot for the RhMnFeCoGe4 compound is shown in Fig.6 at various temperatures in the range from 120 K to 180 K. The M2 data set does not demonstrate a linear dependence; r…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A modified Arrott plot for RhMnFeCoGe4 compound with β = 0.337 and γ = 1.12. The inset shows the normalized slope (NS) of the M1/β(µ0H/M) 1/γ curves at µ0H = 9 T in the vicinity of critical temperature, TC = 146 K. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The temperature dependence of spontaneous magnetization MS per formula unit (f.u.) (left axis, black dots) and inverse magnetic susceptibility χ −1 (right axis, black circles) obtained as the inter￾cept of a tangent line to each M2 (µ0H/M) curve (presented in the Fig.7…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The experimental curve for magnetic field dependence of magnetization M per formula unit (f.u.) at T = 145 K (black line) and the calculated curve, which was produced using the equation 3 with the value of δ = 4.326 (red line). The inset is the same in log-log scale. 1…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: NMR spectra for MnGe (open circles) and RhMnFeCoGe4 (full circles) obtained in zero magnetic field at T = 4.2 K. 3.5. NMR results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The temperature dependence of AC resistivity and its temperature derivative of the RhMnFeCoGe4 compound. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 150 160 170 180 190 (b) RhMnFeCoGe4 RhMnGe2 TC (K) P(GPa) 120 130 140 150 160 170 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 (a) TC RhMnFeCoGe4 (arb.units) T(K) P(GPa) …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The temperature dependence of the magnetic susceptibility of RhMnFeCoGe4 near TC at varying pressures (panel A). Panel B depicts the magnetic P − T diagrams of RhMnFeCoGe4 (this work) and RhMnGe2 (ref. [42]). 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: PM RhMnFeCoGe4. The total and atom-projected density of states (left) and the band structure (right). A small contribution of Ge states to DOS is not shown. Energy is measured from the Fermi level. relaxation were not required [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FM RhMnFeCoGe4. Left: the total (top) and partial (bottom) density of states. A small contribution of Ge states is not shown. Right: the band structure for up (top) and down (bottom) spin directions. Energy is measured from the Fermi level. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adams, S

    T. Adams, S. Mühlbauer, C. Pfleiderer, F. Jonietz, A. Bauer, A. Neubauer, R. Georgii, P. Böni, U. Keiderling, K. Everschor, M. Garst, A. Rosch, Long-Range Crystalline Nature of the Skyrmion Lattice in MnSi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 217206. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.217206

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.217206 2011

  2. [2]

    Tonomura, X

    A. Tonomura, X. Yu, K. Yanagisawa, T. Matsuda, Y. Onose, N. Kanazawa, H. S. Park, Y. Tokura, Real-Space Observation of Skyrmion Lattice in Helimagnet MnSi Thin Samples, Nano Letters 12 (3) (2012) 1673–1677, pMID: 22360155. doi:10.1021/nl300073m

    work page doi:10.1021/nl300073m 2012

  3. [3]

    X. Yu, N. Kanazawa, Y. Onose, K. Kimoto, W. Zhang, S. Ishiwata, Y. Matsui, Y. Tokura, Near room-temperature formation of a skyrmion crystal in thin-films of the helimagnet FeGe, Nature materials 10 (2) (2011) 106–109. doi:10.1038/nmat2916

    doi:10.1038/nmat2916 2011

  4. [4]

    Pfleiderer, G

    C. Pfleiderer, G. J. McMullan, S. R. Julian, G. G. Lonzarich, Magnetic quantum phase transition in MnSi under hydrostatic pressure, Phys. Rev. B 55 (1997) 8330–8338. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.55. 8330

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.55 1997

  5. [5]

    Pedrazzini, H

    P. Pedrazzini, H. Wilhelm, D. Jaccard, T. Jarlborg, M. Schmidt, M. Hanfland, L. Akselrud, H. Q. Yuan, U. Schwarz, Y. Grin, F. Steglich, Metallic State in Cubic FeGe Beyond Its Quantum Phase Transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 047204. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.047204

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98.047204 2007

  6. [6]

    Deutsch, O

    M. Deutsch, O. L. Makarova, T. C. Hansen, M. T. Fernandez-Diaz, V. A. Sidorov, A. V. Tsvyashchenko, L. N. Fomicheva, F. Porcher, S. Petit, K. Koepernik, U. K. Rößler, I. Mirebeau, Two-step pressure-induced collapse of magnetic order in the MnGe chiral magnet, Phys. Rev. B 89 (2014) 180407. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.89.180407

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.89.180407 2014

  7. [7]

    Martin, M

    N. Martin, M. Deutsch, J.-P. Itié, J.-P. Rueff, U. K. Rössler, K. Koepernik, L. N. Fomicheva, A. V. Tsvyashchenko, I. Mirebeau, Magnetovolume effect, macroscopic hysteresis, and moment collapse in the paramagnetic state of cubic MnGe under pressure, Phys. Rev. B 93 (2016) 214404. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.93.214404

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.93.214404 2016

  8. [8]

    P. Tang, Q. Zhou, S.-C. Zhang, Multiple Types of Topological Fermions in Transition Metal Silicides, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 206402. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.206402

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.206402 2017

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Tsvyashchenko, V

    A. Tsvyashchenko, V. Sidorov, A. Petrova, L. Fomicheva, I. Zibrov, V. Dmitrienko, Superconduc- tivity and magnetism in noncentrosymmetric RhGe, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 686 (2016) 431–437. doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2016.06.048

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    Beille, J

    J. Beille, J. Voiron, F. Towfiq, M. Roth, Z. Y. Zhang, Helimagnetic structure of the Fe 1−xCoxSi alloys, Journal of Physics F: Metal Physics 11 (10) (1981) 2153. doi:10.1088/0305-4608/11/10/026

    1981 doi

  3. [11]

    S. V. Grigoriev, S.-A. Siegfried, E. V. Altynbayev, N. M. Potapova, V. Dyadkin, E. V. Moskvin, D. Menzel, A. Heinemann, S. N. Axenov, L. N. Fomicheva, A. V. Tsvyashchenko, Flip of spin helix chirality and ferromagnetic state in Fe 1−xCoxGe compounds, Phys. Rev. B 90 (2014) 174...

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    J. Guo, H. Wang, F. von Rohr, Z. Wang, S. Cai, Y. Zhou, K. Yang, A. Li, S. Jiang, Q. Wu, R. J. Cava, L. Sun, Robust zero resistance in a superconducting high-entropy alloy at pressures up to 190 GPa, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (50) (2017) 13144–13147. ...

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    M. R. Kasem, Y. Nakahira, H. Yamaoka, R. Matsumoto, A. Yamashita, H. Ishii, N. Hiraoka, Y. Takano, Y. Goto, Y. Mizuguchi, Robustness of superconductivity to external pressure in high- entropy-alloy-type metal telluride AgInSnPbBiTe 5, Scientific Reports 12 (1) (2022). doi:10.1...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Cheng, J

    Z. Cheng, J. Sun, X. Gao, Y. Wang, J. Cui, T. Wang, H. Chang, Irradiation effects in high- entropy alloys and their applications, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 930 (2023) 166768. doi: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2022.166768

    2023

  7. [15]

    Z. Su, J. Ding, M. Song, L. Jiang, T. Shi, Z. Li, S. Wang, F. Gao, D. Yun, E. Ma, C. Lu, Enhancing the radiation tolerance of high-entropy alloys via solute-promoted chemical heterogeneities, Acta Materialia 245 (2023) 118662. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2022.118662

    2023

  8. [16]

    S. Tang, H. Dong, Z. Huang, B. Chen, H. Tang, Exploring the magnetic behavior of a magnetic high-entropy alloy with dual-phase B20 crystal structure, Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 36 (7) (2023) 1673–1682. doi:10.1007/s10948-023-06610-8 . 20

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    S. J. Kim, K. N. Yoon, W.-S. Ko, E. S. Park, Entropy-stabilized silicides: Expanding the b20 single- phase region from mono-silicide to high-entropy silicide, APL Materials 10 (12) (2022) 121105. doi:10.1063/5.0123794

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    A. E. Petrova, V. A. Sidorov, S. M. Stishov, High-pressure helium gas apparatus and hydrostatic toroid cell for low-temperatures applications, Physica B: Condensed Matter 359-361 (2005) 1463– 1465, proceedings of the International Conference on Strongly Correlated Electron Sys...

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    Kresse, D

    G. Kresse, D. Joubert, From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B 59 (1999) 1758–1775. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.59.1758

    1999 doi

  12. [20]

    Kresse, J

    G. Kresse, J. Furthmüller, Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set, Phys. Rev. B 54 (1996) 11169–11186. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.54.11169

    1996 doi

  13. [21]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 3865–3868. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865

    1996 doi

  14. [22]

    Richardson, The partial equilibrium diagram of the Fe-Ge system in the range 40-72 at

    M. Richardson, The partial equilibrium diagram of the Fe-Ge system in the range 40-72 at. chemical transport reactions, Acta Chemica Scandinavica 21 (1967) 2305–2317. doi:10.3891/acta.chem.scand. 21-2305

    1967 doi

  15. [23]

    Yasukōchi, K

    K. Yasukōchi, K. Kanematsu, T. Ohoyama, Magnetic properties of intermetallic compounds in iron- germanium system : Fe 1.67Ge and FeGe 2, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 16 (3) (1961) 429–433. doi:10.1143/JPSJ.16.429

    1961 doi

  16. [24]

    Oleszak, E

    D. Oleszak, E. Jartych, A. Antolak, M. Pekała, M. Szymańska, M. Budzyński, Structure, hyperfine interactions and magnetization studies of mechanically alloyed Fe 50Ge50 and Fe 62Ge38, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 400 (1) (2005) 23–28. doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2005.03.054

    2005 doi

  17. [25]

    Narozhnyi, V

    V. Narozhnyi, V. Krasnorussky, Specific features of magnetic phase diagram of an MnSi he- limagnet, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 116 (2013) 785–790. doi:10.1134/ S1063776113050087

    2013

  18. [26]

    Bloch, J

    D. Bloch, J. Voiron, V. Jaccarino, J. Wernick, The high field-high pressure magnetic properties of MnSi, Physics Letters A 51 (5) (1975) 259–261. doi:10.1016/0375-9601(75)90438-7

    1975 doi

  19. [27]

    DiTusa, S

    J. DiTusa, S. Zhang, K. Yamaura, Y. Xiong, J. Prestigiacomo, B. Fulfer, P. Adams, M. Brickson, D. Browne, C. Capan, et al., Magnetic, thermodynamic, and electrical transport properties of the noncentrosymmetric B 20 germanides MnGe and CoGe, Physical Review B 90 (14) (2014) 14...

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    Arrott, Criterion for Ferromagnetism from Observations of Magnetic Isotherms, Phys

    A. Arrott, Criterion for Ferromagnetism from Observations of Magnetic Isotherms, Phys. Rev. 108 (1957) 1394–1396. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.108.1394

    1957 doi

  21. [29]

    Shimizu, H

    K. Shimizu, H. Maruyama, H. Yamazaki, H. Watanabe, Effect of spin fluctuations on magnetic properties and thermal expansion in pseudobinary system Fe xCo1−xSi, Journal of the Physical So- ciety of Japan 59 (1) (1990) 305–318. doi:10.1143/JPSJ.59.305

    1990 doi

  22. [30]

    Kaul, Static critical phenomena in ferromagnets with quenched disorder, Journal of magnetism and magnetic materials 53 (1-2) (1985) 5–53

    S. Kaul, Static critical phenomena in ferromagnets with quenched disorder, Journal of magnetism and magnetic materials 53 (1-2) (1985) 5–53. doi:10.1016/0304-8853(85)90128-3

    1985 doi

  23. [31]

    Chattopadhyay, P

    M. Chattopadhyay, P. Arora, S. Roy, Magnetic properties of the field-induced ferromagnetic state in MnSi, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 21 (29) (2009) 296003. doi:10.1088/0953-8984/21/ 29/296003

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    Krasnorussky, A

    V. Krasnorussky, A. Semeno, M. Anisimov, D. Salamatin, A. Bokov, N. Chtchelkatchev, M. Magnit- skaya, V. Sidorov, A. Bogach, A. Tsvyashchenko, Study of magnetic, thermodynamic and transport properties of laves phase NdRh 2, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 610 (2024...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Muellner, J

    W. Muellner, J. Kouvel, Critical magnetic behavior of giant moments in Ni-Rh, Solid State Com- munications 15 (2) (1974) 441–444. doi:10.1016/0038-1098(74)90795-9

    1974 doi

  26. [34]

    M. E. Fisher, The theory of equilibrium critical phenomena, Reports on Progress in Physics 30 (2) (1967) 615. doi:10.1088/0034-4885/30/2/306

    1967 doi

  27. [35]

    Allodi, R

    G. Allodi, R. De Renzi, G. Guidi, F. Licci, M. W. Pieper, Electronic phase separation in lanthanum manganites: Evidence from 55Mn NMR, Phys. Rev. B 56 (1997) 6036–6046. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB. 56.6036

    1997 doi

  28. [36]

    C. P. Slichter, Principles of magnetic resonance, Vol. 1, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  29. [37]

    O. L. Makarova, A. V. Tsvyashchenko, G. Andre, F. Porcher, L. N. Fomicheva, N. Rey, I. Mirebeau, Neutron diffraction study of the chiral magnet MnGe, Phys. Rev. B 85 (2012) 205205. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevB.85.205205

    2012

  30. [38]

    Yasuoka, V

    H. Yasuoka, V. Jaccarino, R. C. Sherwood, J. H. Wernick, NMR and susceptibility studies of MnSi above Tc, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 44 (3) (1978) 842–849. doi:10.1143/JPSJ.44.842

    1978 doi

  31. [39]

    T. K. Ghorai, S. Pramanik, P. Pramanik, Synthesis and photocatalytic oxidation of different organic 21 dyes by using Mn 2O3/TiO2 solid solution and visible light, Applied surface science 255 (22) (2009) 9026–9031. doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2009.06.086

    2009 doi

  32. [40]

    A. J. Freeman, R. E. Watson, Hyperfine interactions in magnetic materials, Magnetism IIA (1965) 167–305

    1965

  33. [41]

    S.-H. Baek, V. A. Sidorov, A. V. Nikolaev, T. Klimczuk, F. Ronning, A. V. Tsvyashchenko, Possible quadrupole-order-driven commensurate-incommensurate phase transition in B20 CoGe, Phys. Rev. B 105 (2022) 165132. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.105.165132

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    V. A. Sidorov, A. E. Petrova, N. M. Chtchelkatchev, M. V. Magnitskaya, L. N. Fomicheva, D. A. Salamatin, A. V. Nikolaev, I. P. Zibrov, F. Wilhelm, A. Rogalev, A. V. Tsvyashchenko, Magnetic, electronic, and transport properties of the high-pressure-synthesized chiral magnets Mn...

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    D. A. Salamatin, V. A. Sidorov, Z. Surowiec, A. V. Bokov, M. V. Magnitskaya, N. M. Chtchelkachev, M. Wiertel, M. Budzynski, A. V. Tsvyashchenko, The hyperfine magnetic fields and the effect of high pressure on the magnetic transition temperatures of the noncentrosymmetric FeRh...

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    Blaha, K

    P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, F. Tran, R. Laskowski, G. K. H. Madsen, L. D. Marks, Wien2k: An apw+lo program for calculating the properties of solids, The Journal of Chemical Physics 152 (7) (2020) 074101. doi:10.1063/1.5143061. 22

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.