Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 26 references

Pressure induced superconducting dome in LaNiGa2

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 LaNiGa2's superconducting transition temperature forms a pressure dome peaking at 3.2 K near 14.3 GPa, with no structural transition up to 26.3 GPa.

desk verdict LaNiGa2's pressure dome is a real new result; the band-diffusivity story is a self-admittedly non-unique fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10818 v1 pith:FG5BWH5G submitted 2024-12-14 cond-mat.supr-con

Yanan Zhang , Dajun Su , Zhaoyang Shan , Yunshu Shi , Rui Li , Jinyu Wu , Zihan Yang , Kaixin Ye
show 8 more authors
Fei Zhang Yanchun Li Xiaodong Li Chao Cao Valentin Taufour Lin Jiao Michael Smidman Huiqiu Yuan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords LaNiGa2pressure-inducedsuperconductingdometwo-bandsuperconductivitytime-reversalsymmetrybreakinguppercriticalfieldhigh-pressuretransportX-raydiffractionelectronicstructure
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 reports that applying pressure to the superconductor LaNiGa2 first raises its transition temperature from about 2.1 K to a maximum of 3.2 K near 14.3 GPa, then suppresses it, producing a dome-shaped phase diagram. Powder X-ray diffraction shows the crystal structure stays the same up to 26.3 GPa, so the dome is not caused by a structural phase transition. The authors attribute the enhancement to a possible pressure-induced change in the electronic structure, signaled by a sudden increase around 7 GPa in the ratio of the two band diffusivities ($D_2/D_1$) extracted from the upper critical field. Since LaNiGa2 is a time-reversal-symmetry-breaking superconductor with topological band crossings, mapping how its superconductivity responds to pressure constrains what kind of pairing mechanism can explain it.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pressure-temperature phase diagram of LaNiGa2, constructed from resistivity transitions of three single-crystal samples in a diamond anvil cell. The argumentative load is carried by a two-band model for the upper critical field: with intraband and interband coupling constants fixed at ambient-pressure values ($\lambda_{11}=0.156$, $\lambda_{22}=0.161$, $\lambda_{12}=\lambda_{21}=0.012$) taken from the superfluid-density analysis, the only free parameters are the band diffusivities $D_1$ and $D_2$. The ratio $D_2/D_1$ serves as the indicator of electronic-structure change: $D_1$ drops sharply near 7 GPa and $D_2/D_1$ rises toward 1, signaling a shift toward single-band behavior, and the same shift accounts in the model for the continuing increase of $\mu_0H_{c2}(0)$ even after $T_c$ starts to fall.

What would settle it

Measure the upper critical field together with a direct probe of the superconducting gap under pressure, such as penetration depth or specific heat, and check whether a two-band fit with fixed coupling constants still reproduces both; conversely, a sharp pressure-driven change in quantum-oscillation frequencies or Hall coefficient near 7 GPa would confirm the proposed electronic-structure change, and its absence would undermine the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under pressure, LaNiGa2 develops a dome-shaped $T_c(P)$: $T_c$ barely changes to about 2.2 K near 4 GPa, rises faster above roughly 7 GPa to a maximum of 3.2 K at about 14.3 GPa, and then falls to about 2.9 K by 28 GPa. Over the same range the zero-temperature upper critical field $\mu_0H_{c2}(0)$ increases monotonically from about 0.8 T to 1.72 T, and the $H_{c2}(T)$ curvature evolves from two-band-like to single-band-like. Fitting with a two-band model while keeping the superconducting coupling constants fixed yields a band diffusivity ratio $D_2/D_1$ that jumps from 0.12 at 7 GPa to 0.45 at 28.8 GPa, which the authors read as a possible pressure-induced electronic-structure change closely linked to the $T_c$ enhancement. The paper explicitly leaves open whether the time-reversal-breaking pairing state persists at high pressure.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the internal pairing strengths between the two bands of electrons stay the same under pressure, so that all change in the measured upper critical field can be blamed on how fast electrons move in the bands; if the pairing strengths change too, the inferred electronic-structure shift near 7 GPa may be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the dome is real, LaNiGa2 can be tuned continuously by pressure from a two-band-like superconductor toward a more single-band-like one, with $T_c$ rising then falling across the crossover.
  • The absence of any structural transition up to 26.3 GPa means that the non-monotonic $T_c$ does not require a lattice-symmetry change, leaving an electronic origin as the natural explanation.
  • The monotonic increase of $\mu_0H_{c2}(0)$ while $T_c$ decreases above 14.3 GPa shows that the upper critical field and the transition temperature are not controlled by the same pressure-dependent quantity.
  • The pressure range above about 7 GPa is the regime where both the rapid $T_c$ increase and the inferred band-diffusivity change occur, making it the target for further probes of the normal and superconducting states.
  • A comparison with LaNiC2, whose pressure response shows signs of a competing correlated phase, highlights that LaNiGa2 follows a simpler path: a smooth metallic normal state throughout the measured range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the reported jump in $D_2/D_1$ near 7 GPa rests on the assumption that the pairing strengths between the bands stay fixed under pressure; if they also evolve, the jump and its link to the $T_c$ dome could be an artifact.
  • Editorial inference: a direct test of the proposed electronic-structure change would be pressure-dependent quantum-oscillation measurements or a sharp change in the Hall or Seebeck coefficient near 7 GPa, which would reveal a band-structure or carrier-pockets crossover.
  • Editorial inference: if the pairing state is tied to the topological band crossings, the high-pressure side of the dome is a natural place to look for a change of order parameter, for example with muon-spin rotation or specific-heat measurements under pressure.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports electrical resistivity and powder X-ray diffraction measurements on single-crystal LaNiGa2 under pressures up to ~28 GPa. The authors find that Tc initially increases slightly to 2.2 K at ~4 GPa, then rises more rapidly to a maximum of 3.2 K at ~14.3 GPa, and decreases monotonically thereafter, forming a superconducting dome. The upper critical field μ0Hc2(0) increases monotonically from 0.8 T at 2 GPa to 1.72 T at 28.3 GPa. Powder XRD shows no structural phase transition up to 26.3 GPa, and the unit-cell volume is fitted to a Birch-Murnaghan equation of state with B0 = 141.9 GPa. Fitting Hc2(T) with a two-band Gurevich model, using ambient-pressure coupling constants, yields a decrease of D1 and an increase of D2/D1 above ~7 GPa, which the authors interpret as a possible pressure-induced electronic structure change.

Significance. If the dome is correct, this is a clean example of a pressure-induced Tc dome in a TRS-breaking superconductor with topological band crossings, and the absence of a structural transition makes it particularly interesting. The three-sample reproducibility and the XRD analysis strengthen the experimental claims. The Hc2 analysis is a useful but model-dependent addition; the authors are transparent about its limitations. The paper will likely stimulate further high-pressure studies, such as muSR and NQR under pressure, and is of interest to the condensed-matter superconductivity community.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2 and Fig. 4(a)] The use of Daphne 7373 oil as the pressure medium up to 28 GPa needs justification. Daphne 7373 is known to solidify at about 2.2 GPa at room temperature and at lower pressures at cryogenic temperatures, so the measurements above a few GPa are quasi-hydrostatic rather than truly hydrostatic. Non-hydrostatic stress can broaden the superconducting transition and shift Tc, and pressure inhomogeneity typically increases with pressure. Since the central claim of the paper is the shape of the Tc(P) dome, with a maximum near 14.3 GPa and a decrease at higher pressures, the authors should specify the hydrostatic limit of the medium, report the transition widths as a function of pressure, and discuss whether the observed decrease above 14.3 GPa could be influenced by pressure gradients. If possible, they should compare at least one high-pressure point with measurements using a more hydrostatic medium, such as helium or NaCl.
  2. [Abstract and Section 3] The claim that the deduced increase of D2/D1 near 7 GPa suggests pressure-induced electronic structure changes closely linked to superconductivity is not uniquely supported by the Hc2(T) data alone, because the two-band model calculation fixes the coupling constants (λ11=0.156, λ22=0.161, λ12=λ21=0.012) at their ambient-pressure values. As the authors themselves state, 'which parameters change under pressure cannot be uniquely identified.' The Hc2(T) curves cannot separate changes in band diffusivities from changes in the coupling constants, so the apparent jump in D2/D1 may be an artifact of the fixed-λ assumption. Please soften the abstract's final sentence to reflect this non-uniqueness, or add a robustness test, for example by allowing the coupling constants to vary within plausible ranges and checking whether the D2/D1 increase remains a stable feature.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 4(a) and text] The criterion used to define Tc (midpoint, zero resistance, or onset) is not stated; please specify it in the methods section or the figure caption.
  2. [Section 2 and Figure 5] The transport pressures are determined by ruby fluorescence at room temperature, while the XRD pressures are determined at the sample temperature (300 K, as stated). The actual pressure in the transport measurements at low temperatures may differ from the room-temperature value; please discuss the estimated correction or explain why any difference is negligible.
  3. [Section 3] The phrase 'similar superconducting intraband and interband coupling constants' is vague; please state explicitly that the values are taken from Ref. [23] and note any differences, if any.
  4. [Reference [41]] Reference [41] for the ruby fluorescence method appears to be a conference paper; a standard archival reference, such as Mao et al., J. Appl. Phys. 49, 3276 (1978), would be more appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the superconducting dome is a direct experimental measurement, and the two-band model is used only as an interpretive fit with explicitly acknowledged non-uniqueness.

full rationale

The central claims of the paper, namely the pressure-induced superconducting dome with Tc reaching 3.2 K at 14.3 GPa and the absence of structural phase transitions up to 26.3 GPa, are direct experimental observations from resistivity and powder XRD measurements. These results do not depend on any model input or fitted parameter. The two-band Gurevich model analysis of the upper critical field uses coupling constants taken from an independent ambient-pressure superfluid-density study (Ref. [23]); although that reference shares some authors with the present work, the coupling constants are not defined in terms of the pressure-dependent quantities being studied, and the paper does not present the model output as a prediction of the dome. The inferred increase of D2/D1 is a fitted interpretation of the Hc2 data, and the authors explicitly acknowledge that 'which parameters change under pressure cannot be uniquely identified.' That is a limitation and a non-uniqueness concern, not a circular reduction: the fit could in principle have produced different behavior, and the conclusion is not forced by the model's definition. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise is justified solely by a self-citation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central dome measurement does not rely on any fitted parameters beyond the raw Tc determinations. The secondary interpretation of electronic structure change relies on a two-band model with coupling constants taken from Ref. [23] and with D1, D2 as the only free parameters. The bulk modulus is fitted to the Birch-Murnaghan equation of state. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • D1 (band 1 diffusivity) = decreases from about 1.0 (arbitrary units) at 7 GPa to lower values at 28 GPa (Fig. 3d)
    Free parameter in the two-band Gurevich model fit to Hc2(T); used to infer pressure-induced electronic structure change.
  • D2 (band 2 diffusivity) = increases relative to D1; D2/D1 rises from 0.12 at 7 GPa to 0.45 at 28.8 GPa (Fig. 3d)
    Free parameter in the same fit; the ratio D2/D1 is the basis for the electronic structure change claim.
  • B0 (bulk modulus) = 141.9 GPa
    Fitted from the Birch-Murnaghan equation of state to the measured unit cell volume versus pressure.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The two-band Gurevich model for the upper critical field is applicable to LaNiGa2 under pressure.
    The model is standard for multi-band superconductors, but its application here relies on the assumption that the ambient-pressure band structure and pairing couplings remain valid at high pressure.
  • ad hoc to paper The coupling constants lambda11=0.156, lambda22=0.161, lambda12=lambda21=0.012 from Ref. [23] are unchanged under pressure.
    This is an explicit modeling choice made to reduce the number of free parameters; the authors acknowledge the full parameter set cannot be uniquely identified.
  • domain assumption The ruby fluorescence pressure measured at room temperature is the same at low temperature.
    Standard practice in DAC experiments; pressure can shift on cooling due to thermal contraction, but this is usually small and not discussed in the paper.
  • domain assumption Daphne oil 7373 provides sufficiently hydrostatic pressure over the full range to avoid broadening the transitions.
    Daphne 7373 is known to solidify around 2.2 GPa at room temperature, but at low temperatures it can be quasi-hydrostatic; the paper does not discuss hydrostaticity limits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pressure induced superconducting dome in LaNiGa2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FG5BWH5G

@misc{pith2026241210818,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pressure induced superconducting dome in LaNiGa2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FG5BWH5G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10818}
}
read the original abstract

LaNiGa2 is a time-reversal symmetry breaking superconductor with symmetry protected band crossings, making it an ideal platform for investigating the interplay between unconventional superconductivity and electronic structure topology. Here we present a transport study of LaNiGa2 under pressure. The application of pressure to LaNiGa2 induces a significant enhancement of the superconducting transition temperature Tc at a pressure of 7 GPa. In contrast, powder X-ray diffraction (XRD) results show no evidence of structural phase transitions up to 26.3 GPa. Moreover, the ratio of band diffusivity shows a sudden increase at around 7 GPa, suggesting possible pressure-induced changes in the electronic structure that are closely linked to the evolution of superconductivity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Here we present a transport study of LaNiGa2 under pressure

    *Corresponding author (Huiqiu Yuan, email: hqyuan@zju.edu.cn; Michael Smidman, email: msmidman@zju.edu.cn) Pressure induced superconducting dome in LaNiGa2 Yanan Zhang1, Dajun Su1, Zhaoyang Shan1, Yunshu Shi2, Rui Li1, Jinyu Wu1, Zihan Yang1, Kaixin Ye1, Fei Zhang3, Yanchun Li3, Xiaodong Li3, Chao Cao1, Valentin Taufour2, Lin Jiao1, Michael Smidman1∗, and...

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Quintanilla, H. Yuan, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 33, 033001 (2020). 5 A. D. Hillier, J. Quintanilla, R. Cywinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 117007 (2009). 6 A. D. Hillier, J. Quintanilla, B. Mazidian, J. F. Annett, R. Cywinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 097001 (2012). 7 P. K. Biswas, A. D. Hillier, M. R. Lees, D. McK. Paul, Phys. Rev. B 85, 134505 (2012). 8 R. P. S...

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Gawryluk, J. A. T. Barker, R. P. Singh, D. McK. Paul, G. Balakrish- nan, E. Pomjakushina, M. Shi, M. Medarde, A. D. Hil lier, H. Q. Yu- an, J. Quintanilla, J. Mesot, T. Shiroka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 257002 (2018). 12 T. Shang, S. K. Ghosh, M. Smidman, D. J. Gawryluk, C. Baines, A

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Wang, W. Xie, Y. Chen, M. O. Ajeesh, M. Nicklas, E. Pomjakushina, M. Medarde, M. Shi, J. F. Annett, H. Yuan, J. Quintanilla, T. Shiroka, Npj Quantum Mater. 7, 35 (2022). 13 G. M. Luke, A. Keren, L. P. Le, W. D. Wu, Y. J. Uemura, D. A

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Taillefer, J

    Bonn, L. Taillefer, J. D. Garrett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1466 –1469 (1993). 14 G. M. Luke, Y. Fudamoto, K. M. Kojim a, M. I. Larkin, J. Merrin, B

    work page 1993

  6. [6]

    Nachumi, Y. J. Uemura, Y. Maeno, Z. Q. Mao, Y. Mori, H. Naka- mura, M. Sigrist, Nature 394, 558–561 (1998). 15 J. Xia, Y. Maeno, P. T. Beyersdorf, M. M. Fejer, A. Kapitulnik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 167002 (2006). 16 E. R. Schem m, W. J. Gannon, C. M. Wishne, W. P. Halperin, A

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    Kapitulnik, Science 345, 190–193 (2014). 17 V. Grinenko, R. Sarkar, K. Kihou, C. H. Lee, I. Morozov, S

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Büchner, P

    Aswartham, B. Büchner, P. Chekhonin, W. Skrotzki, K. Nenkov, R. Hühne, K. Nielsch, S.-L. Drechsler, V. L. Vadimov, M. A. Silaev, P. A. Volkov, I. Eremin, H. Luetkens, H. -H. Klauss, Nat. Phys. 16, 789–794 (2020). 18 V. Grinenko, S. Ghosh, R. Sarkar, J.- C. Orain, A. Nikitin, M

    work page 2020

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Kikugawa, D. A. Sokolov, J. S. Bobowski, T. Miyoshi, Y. Maeno, A. P. Mackenzie, H. Luetkens, C. W. Hicks 等, Nat. Phys. 17, 748–754 (2021). 19 W. Xie, P. Zhang, B. Shen, W. Jiang, G. Pang, T. Shang, C. Cao, M

    2021

  2. [10]

    Yuan, Sci

    Smidman, H. Yuan, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 63, 2374 12 (2020). 20 T. Shang, M. Smidman, A. Wang, L.-J. Chang, C. Baines, M. K. Lee, Z. Y. Nie, G. M. Pang, W. Xie, W. B. Jiang, M. Shi, M. Medarde, T

    2020

  3. [11]

    Shiroka, H. Q. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 207001 (2020). 21 P. K. Biswas, S. K. Ghosh, J. Z. Zhao, D. A. Mayoh, N. D. Zhigadlo, X. Xu, C. Baines, A. D. Hillier, G. Balakrishnan, M. R. Lees, Nat. Commun. 12, 2504 (2021). 22 J. Chen, L. Jiao, J. L. Zhang, Y. Chen, L. Yang, M. N...

    2020

  4. [12]

    Steglich, H. Q. Yuan, New J. Phys. 15, 053005 (2013). 23 Z. F. Weng, J. L. Zhang, M. Smidman, T. Shang, J. Quintanilla, J. F

    2013

  5. [13]

    Steglich, H. Q. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 027001 (2016). 24 G. M. Pang, Z. Y. Nie, A. Wang, D. Singh, W. Xie, W. B. Jiang, Y

    2016

  6. [14]

    Chen, R. P. Singh, M. Smidman, H. Q. Yuan, Phys. Rev. B 97, 224506 (2018). 25 D. A. Mayoh, A. D. Hillier, G. Balakrishnan, M. R. Lees, Phys. Rev. B 103, 024507 (2021). 26 Y. Wang, Y. Qian, M. Yang, H. Chen, C. Li, Z. Tan, Y. Cai, W

    2018

  7. [15]

    Zhao, S. Gao, Y. Feng, S. Kum ar, E. F. Schwier, L. Zhao, H. Weng, Y. Shi, G. Wang, Y. Song, Y. Huang, K. Shimada 等, Phys. Rev. B 103, 125131 (2021). 27 H. Su, F. Du, S. Luo, Z. Nie, R. Li, W. Xie, B. Shen, Y. Wang, A

    2021

  8. [16]

    Takabatake, C

    Wang, T. Takabatake, C. Cao, M. Smidman, H. Yuan, Sci. China Mater. 66, 1114–1123 (2023). 28 M. Sato, Y. Ando, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 076501 (2017). 29 N. L. Zeng, W. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 66, 092503 (2002). 30 W. H. Lee, H. K. Zeng, Y. D. Yao, Y. Y. Chen, Phys. C Supercond. 266,...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Neubauer, D

    Devlin, K. Neubauer, D. S. Shulman, J. C. Fettin ger, P. Klavins, S. M. Kauzlarich, D. Aoki, I. M. Vishik, W. E. Pickett, V. Taufour, Commun. Phys. 5, 22 (2022). 36 Y. Quan, V. Taufour, W. E. Pickett, Phys. Rev. B 105, 064517 (2022). 37 S. Sundar, M. Yakovlev, N. Azari, M. Abe...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Taufour, J

    Shi, V. Taufour, J. E. Sonier, Phys. Rev. B 109, 104517 (2024). 38 S. Ghimire, K. R. Joshi, E. H. Krenkel, M. A. Tanatar, Y. Shi, M. Kończykowski, R. Grasset, V. Taufour, P. P. Orth, M. S. Scheurer, R

    2024

  11. [19]

    Prozorov, Phys. Rev. B 109, 024515 (2024). 39 S. Katano, H. Nakagawa, K. Matsubayashi, Y. Uwatoko, H. Soeda, T

    2024

  12. [20]

    Takahashi, Phys

    Tomita, H. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. B 90, 220508 (2014). 40 B. Wiendlocha, R. Szczȩśniak, A. P. Durajski, M. Muras, Phys. Rev. B 94, 134517 (2016). 41 O. Grasset, High Press. Res. 21, 139–157 (2001). 42 Y. P. Wu, D. Zhao, A. F. Wang, N. Z. Wang, Z. J. Xiang, X. G. Luo, T. Wu, X. ...

    2014

  13. [21]

    Cheng, Nat

    Jin, J.-G. Cheng, Nat. Commun. 13, (2022). 44 N. R. Werthamer, E. Helfand, P. C. Hohenberg, Phys. Rev. 147, 295–302 (1966). 45 A. Gurevich, Phys. Rev. B 67, 184515 (2003). 46 J. Zhang, L. Jiao, Y. Chen, H. Yuan, Front. Phys. 6, 463–473 (2011). 47 F. Jerzembeck, H. S. Røising, ...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Hicks, Nat. Commun. 13, 4596 (2022). 48 K. Kirshenbaum, P. S. Sy ers, A. P. Hope, N. P. Butch, J. R. Jeffries, S. T. Weir, J. J. Hamlin, M. B. Maple, Y. K. Vohra, J. Paglione, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 087001 (2013). 49 L. He, Y. Jia, S. Zhang, X. Hong, C. Jin, S. Li, Npj Quantum ...

    2022

  15. [23]

    Kissikov, M.-C. Jung, A. S. Botana, A. P. Dioguardi, R. Yamamoto, M. Hirata, G. Conti, S. Nemsak, J. R. Badger, P. Klavins, I. Vishik, V. Taufour, N. J. Curro, Phys. Rev. B 109, 125113 (2024). 53 J. Fowlie, M. Hadjimichael, M. M. Martins, D. Li, M. Osada, B. Y

    2024

  16. [24]

    Suter, Nat

    Hwang, A. Suter, Nat. Phys. 18, 1043–1047 (2022). 54 Y. Cui, C. Li, Q. Li, X. Zhu, Z. Hu, Y. Yang, J. Zhang, R. Yu, H. -H

    2022

  17. [25]

    Yu, Chin

    Wen, W. Yu, Chin. Phys. Lett. 38, 067401 (2021). 55 C. Liu, A. D. Palczewski, R. S. Dhaka, T. Kondo, R. M. Fernandes, E. D. Mun, H. Hodovanets, A. N. Thaler, J. Schmalian, S. L. Bud’ko, P. C. Canfield, A. Kaminski, Phys. Rev. B 84, 020509 (2011). 56 H. Miao, T. Qian, X. Shi, P...

    2021

  18. [26]

    Xing, X. -C. Wang, C. -Q. Jin, J. -P. Hu, H. Ding, Nat. Commun. 6, 6056 (2015). 57 A. A. Varlamov, Y. M. Galperin , S. G. Sharapov, Y. Yerin, Low Temp. Phys. 47, 672–683 (2021)

    2015

Pith tools

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