Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Direct determination of layer anomalous Hall conductivity using uniaxial Wannier functions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new method decomposes anomalous Hall conductivity into per-layer contributions in real space, validated on axion-insulating MnBi2Te4.

desk verdict A clean layer-resolved AHC method with a real gauge-dependence question; total AHC is safe, layer numbers need a robustness check. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01160 v2 pith:DU6ABUUV submitted 2025-06-01 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.comp-ph

Yume Morishima , Fumiyuki Ishii , Naoya Yamaguchi This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.comp-ph
keywords anomalousHallconductivitylayerdecompositionhybridWannierfunctionsaxioninsulatorMnBi2Te4Mn2Bi2Te5Berryphasefirst-principlescalculation
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 proposes a way to split the intrinsic anomalous Hall conductivity (AHC) of an insulating slab into layer-resolved pieces, which it calls the layer anomalous Hall conductivity (LAHC). The method combines the Fukui-Hatsugai-Suzuki approach, which computes AHC from Berry fluxes in a discretized Brillouin zone, with hybrid Wannier functions that are localized along one real-space axis. The authors derive a formula assigning each hybrid Wannier center a conductivity contribution, so that summing over all layers recovers the total AHC. They validate the approach on MnBi2Te4, where the top and bottom surfaces contribute approximately $+0.55\,e^2/h$ and $-0.55\,e^2/h$, respectively, matching the expected $\pm e^2/(2h)$ surface AHC of an axion insulator. They then apply the method to Mn2Bi2Te5 and show that different antiferromagnetic structures produce qualitatively different layer-resolved AHC profiles even when the total AHC is zero.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the hybrid Wannier function: a Wannier function localized along the stacking direction ($z$) but delocalized in the in-plane directions, constructed without iterative maximization by diagonalizing the overlap matrix $\mathbf{M}_{\mathbf{k}_\parallel,\mathbf{k}_\parallel+\mathbf{G}_c}$ to obtain a parallel-transport basis. The paper then constructs the Berry-flux matrix $\tilde{\mathbf{M}}(\mathbf{k})$ from four overlaps around a plaquette, transforms it to the hybrid Wannier basis using the unitary $\mathbf{U}(\mathbf{k}_\parallel)$, and diagonalizes the result to obtain eigenvalues $\mu_i(\mathbf{k}_\parallel)$ and the unitary $\mathbf{Y}(\mathbf{k}_\parallel)$. The quantity $\sum_i |Y_{ji}|^2 \mathrm{Im}\,\ln\mu_i$ is the contribution of the $j$-th hybrid Wannier state, and layer assignment is made by the hybrid Wannier center $\bar{z}_j$.

What would settle it

Compute the LAHC of the same MnBi2Te4 slab after applying a random unitary rotation within the occupied manifold before constructing the hybrid Wannier functions, or using a different slab termination; if the layer-resolved surface values shift by more than the few-percent numerical tolerance while the total AHC remains unchanged, then the claimed direct layer determination is gauge-dependent and not uniquely defined. Alternatively, apply the method to a slab of a trivial insulator with known zero surface AHC and check that all layer contributions vanish.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the layer anomalous Hall conductivity of an insulating slab is directly calculable from the diagonalized overlap matrix of the Fukui-Hatsugai-Suzuki method expressed in a hybrid Wannier basis. Specifically, Eqs. (14) and (15) give $\sigma_{xy}^{\mathrm{layer}}(L) = \sum_{\bar{z}_j \in L} (e^2/h)(1/2\pi) \sum_{I_a,I_b} \sum_i |Y_{ji}(\mathbf{k}_\parallel)|^2 \, \mathrm{Im}\,\ln \mu_i(\mathbf{k}_\parallel)$, where $\mu_i$ are eigenvalues of the Berry-flux matrix and $Y_{ji}$ are the unitary matrix elements connecting hybrid Wannier states to those eigenvalues. The paper demonstrates that for MnBi2Te4 the top and bottom septuple layers yield surface AHC values of approximately $\pm 0.55\,e^2/h$, in agreement with the previously reported surface AHC of the axion insulator. For Mn2Bi2Te5, the method distinguishes an interlayer antiferromagnetic order (AFM1) that behaves like an axion insulator with surface AHC $\pm 0.49\,e^2/h$ from an intralayer antiferromagnetic order (AFM2) where the surface AHC is $\pm 0.39\,e^2/h$ and the interior oscillations are suppressed. The method requires no unoccupied states and no iterative Wannier localization.

Load-bearing premise

The layer attribution assumes that the hybrid Wannier centers $\bar{z}_j(\mathbf{k}_\parallel)$ are stable, well separated, and can be unambiguously assigned to physical layers; these centers are gauge-dependent under unitary mixing within the occupied manifold, and the paper does not test whether the layer-resolved values, especially the oscillating interior contributions, survive a different Wannier gauge or a different slab termination.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The total AHC of a slab is exactly recovered by summing the LAHC over all layers, so the method provides a consistency check and a spatial decomposition simultaneously.
  • The LAHC profile serves as a real-space diagnostic for axion-insulating behavior: a surface value near $\pm e^2/(2h)$ with interior oscillations indicates axion-insulating character, while a suppressed oscillation and non-quantized surface value indicates otherwise.
  • The approach can be applied to heterostructures, twisted systems, and amorphous materials where a layer-by-layer view of the anomalous Hall effect is currently difficult.
  • It may guide device design by identifying which layers contribute most to the anomalous Hall signal, enabling precise layer control in artificial superlattices.
  • Because it requires only occupied states, it extends naturally to metallic systems through the local Berry-phase formalism, opening a route to layer-resolved AHC in magnetic metal thin films.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The layer attribution depends on hybrid Wannier centers being stable and well separated; an explicit test of gauge dependence (e.g., applying a different unitary mixing within the occupied manifold) would show how much of the interior oscillation is physical versus an artifact of the Wannier gauge.
  • The method could be extended to predict layer-resolved anomalous Nernst conductivity, since the Nernst effect is tied to the same Berry curvature; a layer-decomposed version would be a natural testable extension.
  • The oscillating interior LAHC contributions, though they average out, may carry information about the spatial distribution of Berry curvature near surfaces; comparing the profile with independent real-space Chern marker calculations would test this interpretation.
  • The distinction between AFM1 and AFM2 in Mn2Bi2Te5 suggests that LAHC could be used to infer the magnetic structure of a layered material from transport measurements, provided the surface contribution can be isolated experimentally.
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. This paper proposes a method for computing the layer-resolved anomalous Hall conductivity (LAHC) of insulating slabs by combining the Fukui-Hatsugai-Suzuki (FHS) formula for the total AHC with hybrid Wannier functions localized along the slab normal. The central algebraic step is a basis change of the FHS overlap-matrix product from the Bloch basis to the hybrid Wannier basis, using the trace invariance of the Berry-flux operator to assign a diagonal contribution σ_xy(zbar_j) to each hybrid Wannier center zbar_j and then summing over centers belonging to a given physical layer. The method is applied to a 10-septuple-layer MnBi2Te4 slab, where the top and bottom layers give approximately ±0.55 e^2/h, in trend-level agreement with prior surface AHC calculations, and to Mn2Bi2Te5 slabs in two antiferromagnetic orders, where the layer-resolved profiles differ markedly and only one order shows axion-insulator-like surface quantization. The paper emphasizes that the method requires no unoccupied states and that the hybrid Wannier centers are obtained directly without iterative maximally-localized-Wannier minimization.

Significance. If the layer decomposition is physically meaningful, this work offers a practical and inexpensive real-space probe of where the anomalous Hall response originates in layered magnetic materials and heterostructures, complementing existing layer-projection schemes in the literature. The manuscript has several genuine strengths: the algebra from Eq. (3) to Eq. (10) is internally consistent, the use of the FHS determinant-eigenvalue factorization and trace invariance is sound, the total AHC sum rule is exactly preserved by construction, and the method avoids unoccupied states and iterative Wannier localization. The numerical validation against the known surface AHC of MnBi2Te4, the trend-level agreement with the earlier layer-projected calculation of Gu et al. [26], and the falsifiable prediction that AFM1 and AFM2 Mn2Bi2Te5 have different surface LAHC values are all useful checks. The methodology could be a valuable tool for analyzing twisted and heterostructured systems, as the introduction argues.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (14)-(15), Appendix A] The central claim that σ_xy(zbar_j) is a physically meaningful layer-resolved quantity rests on the assumption that the hybrid Wannier centers zbar_j(k_parallel) are k_parallel-independent enough to assign each state to a single layer, and that the diagonal matrix elements ⟨h^0_j|F̂|h^0_j⟩ are robust. Neither assumption is tested. The paper does not show the dispersion of zbar_j(k_parallel) across the surface Brillouin zone, nor does it quantify the overlap of centers from adjacent layers, nor the magnitude of the off-diagonal elements ⟨h^0_j|F̂|h^0_{j'}⟩ that are dropped by the trace-then-project procedure. Since hybrid Wannier functions in a slab are gauge-dependent under unitary rotations within the occupied manifold, and the parallel-transport gauge of Eq. (A.1) is one particular choice, the reported ±0.55 e^2/h surface values and the interior oscillations should be shown to survive a different gauge or a different slab termination before they can be called a direct determination of observable layer conductivities. The total AHC sum rule is exact, but the layer partition is not.
  2. [Eq. (8) to Eq. (10)] The reduction from the slab form of Eq. (8) to the final expression Eq. (10) is asserted rather than proved. In particular, the passage from the double sum over hybrid Wannier index j and the eigenvector index i with overlaps ⟨h^0_j|a_i⟩ to the single-matrix form with |Y_ji|^2 assumes that the unitary Y(k_parallel) defined by diagonalizing U^†M̃U is exactly the change of basis between the hybrid Wannier states and the eigenvectors |a_i⟩. Given that the eigenvector basis is only defined implicitly through the non-Hermitian matrix M̃(k_parallel), the paper should spell out the derivation fully, including the gauge choices for the phases of |a_i⟩ and |h^0_j⟩, so that a reader can verify that no additional approximation (such as neglecting off-diagonal terms in the hybrid Wannier representation of F̂) is hidden in this step.
  3. [Section 5, Fig. 3(d)] The validation against the prior study of MnBi2Te4 is trend-level rather than quantitative. The manuscript reports surface LAHC values of +0.55 e^2/h and -0.55 e^2/h for the bottom and top septuple layers, and states that the prior calculation [26] found ±0.49 e^2/h with interior oscillations of amplitude 0.21 e^2/h versus the present 0.20 e^2/h. These differences are not discussed. Since the central numerical claim is that the method reproduces the known surface AHC, the paper should state the expected uncertainty from k-mesh convergence (100×100×1), the Hubbard U choice, and the slab thickness (10 SL here versus 16 SL in [26]), and explain whether the 0.06 e^2/h deviation is within the expected error. Without this, the agreement is suggestive but not a precise validation.
  4. [Eq. (15) and Section 5] The definition of surface AHC in the results section is ambiguous: in Fig. 3(d) the top-layer LAHC is −0.55 e^2/h while the text in Section 5 says the top and bottom SL contribute +0.55 and −0.55 e^2/h, and the previous study's values are quoted with opposite sign convention. The paper should clarify the sign convention for the surface AHC relative to the magnetization direction and the stacking order, so that the reader can compare the present numbers with the axion-insulator expectation ±e^2/(2h) unambiguously.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2] There are frequent typos and spacing errors in the mathematical text, such as 'trase form' for 'trace form', 'natrix' for 'matrix', and missing spaces between symbols in the displayed equations. These should be corrected in a careful revision.
  2. [Eq. (9) and Eq. (11)] The notation for the unitary matrices is confusing: Y(k_parallel) is introduced as the unitary that diagonalizes U^†M̃U, but it is also used in Eq. (9) to rotate the hybrid Wannier states into the eigenstates |a_i⟩. The paper should define the domain and codomain of Y explicitly and state the phase convention for the eigenvectors of the non-Hermitian matrix M̃.
  3. [Appendix A] The singular value decomposition M = XΣW^† is mentioned but the subsequent statement 'obtain the optimal unitary matrix U(k_parallel)' is not self-contained: the paper should clarify that U is obtained from the polar decomposition of the overlap matrix, i.e., from XW^†, and explain why this choice corresponds to the parallel transport gauge used in the hybrid Wannier construction.
  4. [Section 4 and Fig. 2] The computational details state that the overlap matrix M_{k,k+δk_a} is computed 'by transforming it into the product of three matrices found in our previous study [36]', but no further detail or accuracy benchmark is given. A brief description of this factorization and its numerical accuracy would help reproducibility.
  5. [References] Reference [19] (Sawahata et al.) is cited as the source for the 'local Berry phase' concept and the FHS-based method for metals, while the present work is restricted to insulating slabs. The connection to metallic systems, which is claimed as an advantage in the introduction, is not actually demonstrated in the results; this should either be demonstrated or the claim should be softened.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LAHC formula is an exact unitary-basis rewrite of the FHS trace and is benchmarked against an external calculation.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained as a basis transformation. Equation (6) rewrites the FHS determinant as a product of eigenvalues, and Eqs. (7)-(10) insert hybrid Wannier states while relying on the trace invariance under the unitary change of basis. Equations (14)-(15) only partition the invariant total AHC by Wannier centers; they do not fit any parameter to the target surface AHC. The validation against MnBi2Te4 is checked against the independent prior calculation of Ref. [26] and the axion-insulator expectation of +/-e^2/(2h), not encoded into the method. Self-citations [19] and [36] supply a local-Berry-phase interpretation and an efficient overlap-matrix evaluation, but the load-bearing LAHC formula does not reduce to them, and no uniqueness or ansatz is imported from them. The gauge dependence of Wannier centers is a legitimate robustness concern, but it is a correctness caveat rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The computation has one externally supplied Hamiltonian parameter (U_eff) and relies on the usual DFT+U mean-field description of magnetism. No additional free parameters are fitted to the anomalous Hall data. The layer decomposition itself is not a fitted quantity but a convention; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Hubbard U_eff for Mn 3d = 4.0 eV
    Input interaction parameter taken from previous study, not fitted here; it changes the band gap and therefore the LAHC values.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math det(Mtilde) equals the product of eigenvalues, and the trace is invariant under a unitary change of basis
    This identity lets the paper replace the determinant form of the FHS flux with eigenvalues and then take the trace in the hybrid Wannier basis (Eqs. (6) and (7)).
  • domain assumption In an insulating slab, k_c = 0 and m = 0 reduce the general LAHC expression in Eq. (8) to Eq. (10)
    The paper states this reduction without derivation and assumes slab states have no k_z dispersion and the m = 0 Wannier sheet contains all occupied states.
  • ad hoc to paper Hybrid Wannier centers zbar_j provide meaningful, non-overlapping layer labels
    LAHC in Eq. (15) is defined by summing over Wannier centers assigned to a layer; Wannier centers are gauge-dependent, so this is a convention introduced by the method rather than a unique physical quantity.
  • domain assumption DFT+U with U_eff = 4.0 eV and SOC accurately describes the magnetic insulating states of MnBi2Te4 and Mn2Bi2Te5
    The material conclusions in Sec. 5 depend on the accuracy of these DFT inputs; no experimental benchmark or convergence test is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Direct determination of layer anomalous Hall conductivity using uniaxial Wannier functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DU6ABUUV

@misc{pith2026250601160,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Direct determination of layer anomalous Hall conductivity using uniaxial Wannier functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DU6ABUUV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01160}
}
abstract

We propose a method for computing layer anomalous Hall conductivity (LAHC) in real space by integrating the Fukui-Hatsugai-Suzuki method with hybrid Wannier functions localized along a single axis. To validate the method, we calculated the LAHC of axion-insulating MnBi$_2$Te$_4$ and confirmed the agreement between the sum of LAHC on the surface and the surface AHC previously reported. We further applied the method to antiferromagnetic Mn$_2$Bi$_2$Te$_5$ and examined the dependence on the magnetic structure of LAHC, identifying cases with and without axion insulating behavior. This layer-resolved analysis offers a powerful tool for studying topological transport in complex materials, including heterostructures, and may guide the design of future devices based on the anomalous Hall effect with precise layer control.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01160 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The procedure of computing the σxy(¯zj ) in an insulating slab system. The advantages of this method are that it does not require information on unoccupied bands, as in the Fukui-Hatsugai-Suzuki method, and that the process of maximizing the localization of hybrid Wannier functions is performed by a direct method that does not require iterative calculations. 3. Models In axion insulators, one of the topological mate… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Crystal structures of MnBi2Te4 with 10SLs and Mn2Bi2Te5 with 10NLs. (a)MnBi2Te4. The red upward and blue downward arrows show the up and down spins of each Mn atom, respectively. The intralayer exhibits ferromagnetic order, while the in￾terlayer exhibits antiferromagnetic order. (b)Mn2Bi2Te5. (c), (d)The spin alignment of Mn2Bi2Te5. We denote the magnetic orders of (c) and (d) as AFM1 and AFM2, respec￾tively. 10 [P… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a-c) Band structures of (a) MnBi2Te4 with 10SLs, (b) AFM1 Mn2Bi2Te5 with 10NLs, and (c) AFM2 Mn2Bi2Te5 with 10NLs. (d-f) Layer-resolved σ layer xy (L) and Cumulative σxy(¯z) at the Fermi energy. (d) MnBi2Te4 with 10SLs. The top and bottom SL contribute +0.55 e 2/h and −0.55 e 2/h in the σ layer xy , respectively, while the σ layer xy oscillate in the intermediate SLs due to changes in magnetic ordering, resulting i… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    M. Gu, J. Li, H. Sun, Y. Zhao, C. Liu, J. Liu, H. Lu, and Q. Liu: Nat. Commun.12(2021) 3524. 15

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Nagaosa, J

    N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. MacDonald, and N. P. Ong: Rev. Mod. Phys.82(2010) 1539

    work page 2010

  3. [2]

    Xiao, M.-C

    D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu: Rev. Mod. Phys.82(2010) 1959

    work page 2010

  4. [3]

    E. Liu, Y. Sun, N. Kumar, L. Muechler, A. Sun, L. Jiao, S.-Y. Yang, D. Liu, A. Liang, Q. Xu, J. Kroder, V. Süß, 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(2018) 1125

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    Sakai, Y

    A. Sakai, Y. P. Mizuta, A. A. Nugroho, R. Sihombing, T. Koretsune, M.-T. Suzuki, N. Takemori, R. Ishii, D. Nishio-Hamane, R. Arita, P. Goswami, and S. Nakatsuji: Nat. Phys.14(2018) 1119

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    Nakatsuji, N

    S. Nakatsuji, N. Kiyohara, and T. Higo: Nature527(2015) 212

    work page 2015

  7. [6]

    T. Chen, T. Tomita, S. Minami, M. Fu, T. Koretsune, M. Kitatani, I. Muhammad, D. Nishio-Hamane, R. Ishii, F. Ishii, R. Arita, and S. Nakatsuji: Nat. Commun.12(2021) 572

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    K. Kim, J. Seo, E. Lee, K.-T. Ko, B. Kim, B. G. Jang, J. M. Ok, J. Lee, Y. J. Jo, W. Kang, J. H. Shim, C. Kim, H. W. Yeom, B. Il Min, B.-J. Yang, and J. S. Kim: Nat. Mater.17(2018) 794

    work page 2018

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    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: Science340(2013) 167. 14

    2013

  2. [9]

    M. V. Berry: Proc. R. Soc. A-Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.392(1984) 45

    1984

  3. [10]

    D. J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M. P. Nightingale, and M. den Nijs: Phys. Rev. Lett.49(1982) 405

    1982

  4. [11]

    R. D. King-Smith and D. Vanderbilt: Phys. Rev. B47(1993) 1651

    1993

  5. [12]

    Resta: Rev

    R. Resta: Rev. Mod. Phys.66(1994) 899

    1994

  6. [13]

    G. H. Wannier: Phys. Rev.52(1937) 191

    1937

  7. [14]

    G. H. Wannier: Rev. Mod. Phys.34(1962) 645

    1962

  8. [15]

    Marzari and D

    N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt: Phys. Rev. B56(1997) 12847

    1997

  9. [16]

    Marzari, A

    N. Marzari, A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, I. Souza, and D. Vanderbilt: Rev. Mod. Phys.84(2012) 1419

    2012

  10. [17]

    X. Wu, O. Diéguez, K. M. Rabe, and D. Vanderbilt: Phys. Rev. Lett. 97(2006) 107602

    2006

  11. [18]

    Fukui, Y

    T. Fukui, Y. Hatsugai, and H. Suzuki: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.74(2005) 1674

    2005

  12. [19]

    Sawahata, N

    H. Sawahata, N. Yamaguchi, S. Minami, and F. Ishii: Phys. Rev. B107 (2023) 024404

    2023

  13. [20]

    Budai, H

    N. Budai, H. Isshiki, R. Uesugi, Z. Zhu, T. Higo, S. Nakatsuji, and Y. Otani: Appl. Phys. Lett.122(2023) 102401

    2023

  14. [21]

    Isshiki, N

    H. Isshiki, N. Budai, and Y. Otani: Front. Phys.11(2023) 1205556

    2023

  15. [22]

    Isshiki, N

    H. Isshiki, N. Budai, A. Kobayashi, R. Uesugi, T. Higo, S. Nakatsuji, and Y. Otani: Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024) 216702

    2024

  16. [23]

    Bianco and R

    R. Bianco and R. Resta: Phys. Rev. B84(2011) 241106

    2011

  17. [24]

    Marrazzo and R

    A. Marrazzo and R. Resta: Phys. Rev. B95(2017) 121114

    2017

  18. [25]

    Varnava and D

    N. Varnava and D. Vanderbilt: Phys. Rev. B98(2018) 245117

    2018

  19. [27]

    J. Li, Q. Wu, and H. Weng: npj Quantum Mater.10(2025) 53

    2025

  20. [28]

    R. S. K. Mong, A. M. Essin, and J. E. Moore: Phys. Rev. B81(2010) 245209

    2010

  21. [29]

    Ozaki: Phys

    T. Ozaki: Phys. Rev. B67(2003) 155108

    2003

  22. [30]

    Ozaki and H

    T. Ozaki and H. Kino: Phys. Rev. B69(2004) 195113

    2004

  23. [31]

    Ozaki and H

    T. Ozaki and H. Kino: Phys. Rev. B72(2005) 045121

    2005

  24. [32]

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

    1996

  25. [33]

    Von Barth and L

    U. Von Barth and L. Hedin: J. Phys. C Solid State Phys.5(1972) 1629

    1972

  26. [34]

    Kubler, K.-H

    J. Kubler, K.-H. Hock, J. Sticht, and A. Williams: J. Phys. F Met. Phys. 18(1988) 469

    1988

  27. [35]

    Theurich and N

    G. Theurich and N. A. Hill: Phys. Rev. B64(2001) 073106

    2001

  28. [36]

    Yamaguchi and F

    N. Yamaguchi and F. Ishii: Comput. Phys. Commun.280(2022) 108487

    2022

  29. [37]

    J. Zhou, W. Zhang, Y.-C. Lin, J. Cao, Y. Zhou, W. Jiang, H. Du, B. Tang, J. Shi, B. Jiang, et al.: Nature609(2022) 46

    2022

  30. [38]

    M.-W. Yoo, J. Tornos, A. Sander, L.-F. Lin, N. Mohanta, A. Peralta, D. Sanchez-Manzano, F. Gallego, D. Haskel, J. Freeland, et al.: Nat. Commun.12(2021) 3283

    2021

  31. [39]

    H. Deng, Z. Chen, A. Wołoś, M. Konczykowski, K. Sobczak, J. Sitnicka, I. V. Fedorchenko, J. Borysiuk, T. Heider, Ł. Pluciński, et al.: Nat. Phys.17(2021) 36

    2021

  32. [40]

    Serlin, C

    M. Serlin, C. L. Tschirhart, H. Polshyn, Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Balents, and A. F. Young: Science367(2020) 900

    2020

  33. [41]

    Karel, D

    J. Karel, D. S. Bouma, C. Fuchs, S. Bennett, P. Corbae, S. B. Song, B. H. Zhang, R. Q. Wu, and F. Hellman: Phys. Rev. Mater.4(2020) 114405

    2020

  34. [42]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi: J. Appl. Crystallogr.44(2011) 1272. 16

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.