Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

La2SmNi2O7 shows a new oxygen-driven monoclinic superstructure, no detectable displacive CDW, and pressure transitions from monoclinic to orthorhombic at 15 GPa then tetragonal at 21 GPa that align with its superconducting dome.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 02:59 UTC pith:GP3UDI6J

load-bearing objection Solid synchrotron crystallography that revises the ambient structure of La2SmNi2O7, bounds any displacive CDW, and maps a monoclinic–orthorhombic–tetragonal sequence with usable refinements inside the SC window; the only real soft spot is overlaying Li et al. transport without re-measuring SC on the same crystals. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.03363 v1 pith:GP3UDI6J submitted 2026-07-03 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con

Pressure-Driven Structural Transitions without a Displacive Charge-Density Wave in La₂SmNi₂O₇

J. Huang , Sitaram Ramakrishnan , P. Rodi\`ere , P. Toulemonde , Z. Rahmany , V. Bal\'edent , B. Vignolle , Sourav Marik
show 2 more authors
P. Fertey P. Foury-Leylekian
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con
keywords bilayer nickelateLa2SmNi2O7high-pressure X-ray diffractionstructural phase transitionscharge-density wavesuperconductivityNi–O–Ni bond angleantiferrodistortive order
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper maps the crystal structure of the bilayer nickelate La2SmNi2O7 under pressure and temperature using synchrotron X-ray diffraction on powder and single crystals. At ambient pressure it finds a monoclinic superstructure with a doubled c axis caused only by small oxygen displacements that form an antiferrodistortive pattern in the NiO bilayers, different from the structure previously reported and closer to pristine La3Ni2O7. No satellite reflections that would signal a displacive charge-density wave appear down to 15 K. Compression drives a clear sequence of transitions: monoclinic to orthorhombic near 15 GPa, then to tetragonal near 21 GPa. Structural parameters refined inside the superconducting pressure range give the Ni–Ni distances and Ni–O–Ni angles needed for models of how superconductivity appears.

Core claim

At ambient conditions La2SmNi2O7 crystallizes in a monoclinic P21/c (equivalently pseudo-orthorhombic P21/n) superstructure whose c-axis doubling arises solely from antiferrodistortive oxygen displacements in the NiO bilayers; no CDW satellites are detected above the 5 imes10-5 Bragg intensity threshold at 15 K; under pressure the lattice evolves monoclinic o orthorhombic (~15 GPa) o tetragonal (complete by ~21 GPa), and the superconducting dome onset coincides with the loss of monoclinic symmetry while maximum Tc sits inside the tetragonal phase with linear Ni–O–Ni bonds.

What carries the argument

Synchrotron single-crystal and powder X-ray diffraction under simultaneous high pressure and low temperature, combined with full structural refinements that track space-group extinctions, unit-cell metrics, apical Ni–Ni distances, and Ni–O–Ni bond angles across the transitions.

Load-bearing premise

The superconducting critical pressures and dome shape measured on crystals from the same synthesis batch transfer directly to the crystals studied here, so the structural transitions can be overlaid on that phase diagram without new transport data.

What would settle it

Re-measure resistivity versus pressure on crystals taken from the identical batch used for the diffraction study; if the superconducting onset does not sit at the monoclinic-to-orthorhombic boundary near 15 GPa, the claimed coincidence fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Monoclinic symmetry is incompatible with superconductivity in this system, while linear Ni–O–Ni angles optimize Tc.
  • Any displacive CDW amplitude must be smaller than a few thousandths of an angstrom, pointing to weak electron–phonon coupling or a purely electronic density-wave state.
  • The refined atomic coordinates and bond angles inside the superconducting dome supply concrete inputs for DFT and minimal models of pairing.
  • Chemical substitution of Sm for La shifts the orthorhombic-to-tetragonal transition to higher pressure than in the undoped compound.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The antiferrodistortive oxygen motif may set the preferred directions of electronic nematic order by making both the in-plane axes and their diagonals inequivalent.
  • The higher critical pressures relative to pure La3Ni2O7 suggest that chemical pressure from Sm does not simply mimic hydrostatic pressure for the lattice transitions.
  • Absence of a detectable displacive CDW despite flatter Fermi surfaces than in trilayer nickelates implies weaker electron–electron interactions in the bilayer family.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a synchrotron single-crystal and powder X-ray diffraction study of the bilayer nickelate La2SmNi2O7 as a function of pressure (0–25 GPa) and temperature (down to 10–15 K). At ambient pressure the authors identify a monoclinic P21/c (equivalently pseudo-orthorhombic P21/n) superstructure with c-axis doubling that arises solely from antiferrodistortive displacements of the in-plane O4/O5 oxygen atoms; this differs from the previously reported simple-c P21/m cell. No satellite intensity associated with a displacive CDW is detected at 15 K down to ~5 imes10^{-5} of the main Bragg peaks. Under compression a sequence of transitions is established: monoclinic o orthorhombic near 15 GPa, then orthorhombic o tetragonal (onset ~18 GPa, complete ~21 GPa). Structural refinements (JANA) are provided at selected points inside the pressure window of the superconducting dome reported by Li et al., yielding Ni–Ni apical distances and Ni–O–Ni angles that approach 180° only in the tetragonal phase.

Significance. If the structural sequence and ambient superstructure hold, the work supplies the first low-temperature single-crystal diffraction parameters across the pressure range where superconductivity appears in a chemically pressurized bilayer nickelate. The refined coordinates, the quantitative upper bound on any CDW displacement, the identification of an intermediate orthorhombic window, and the demonstration that SC onset coincides with loss of monoclinic symmetry (while Tc max lies inside the tetragonal phase) are directly usable by DFT and model calculations of pairing. The ambient antiferrodistortive oxygen motif and the absence of a sizeable displacive CDW also constrain competing-order scenarios relative to both pristine La3Ni2O7 and the trilayer analogues. These are concrete, falsifiable crystallographic results that advance the structural side of the nickelate SC problem.

major comments (3)
  1. [Discussion / SC-structure correlation] Discussion (paragraph beginning “Combining our structural results with the transport measurements of Li et al.”): the central claim that SC onset exactly coincides with the monoclinic–orthorhombic boundary rests on transferring the entire superconducting dome of Li et al. (Nature 2025) to the present crystals solely because both batches share the same synthesis protocol and EDX stoichiometry. No resistivity or magnetization data are reported on the actual crystals used for the synchrotron refinements. While the authors state the assumption explicitly, a load-bearing phase-diagram overlay of this type should either include a brief transport check on a sister crystal from the same batch or be phrased more cautiously as “consistent with the dome reported for identically prepared samples.”
  2. [Results / intermediate orthorhombic phase] Main text (paragraph after Fig. 3) and SI: the intermediate phase between 15 and ~21 GPa is assigned Amam on the basis of powder patterns and the vanishing of intensity differences between (hkl)/(h¯k¯l) pairs. The authors correctly note that only the point-group symmetry is secure and that the exact space group cannot be established unambiguously from the available data. Because the claim that an orthorhombic window exists (and that SC can occur inside it) is used to argue that strictly linear Ni–O–Ni is not a prerequisite, the manuscript should either (i) present a full single-crystal refinement in Amam at one pressure inside 15–18 GPa or (ii) systematically list the extinction rules that are and are not satisfied, so that the reader can judge how much of the Amam assignment is assumed versus observed.
  3. [High-pressure refinements / Fig. S7] Results (high-pressure single-crystal section) and Tables S3–S5: above ~20 GPa the sample is partially damaged, completeness drops below 75 %, and superstructure reflections related to c-doubling are lost in the diamond background. Consequently the refinements inside the upper part of the SC dome are performed only in the average P21/m or I4/mmm cells. The Ni–O–Ni angle and Ni–Ni distance trends (Fig. S7) are therefore less precise precisely where Tc is reported to peak. The authors should quantify the effect of this incompleteness on the refined angles (e.g., by comparing free versus constrained refinements) or clearly mark the 18.5–21 GPa points as lower-reliability.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Global] Throughout the text and figure captions, pressure units are inconsistently spaced (“15GP a”, “21 GP a”, “14GP a”). Standardize to “15 GPa”.
  2. [Fig. 1] Fig. 1 caption and main text: the reciprocal-plane reconstruction is indexed in the Li et al. P21/m cell; a short note that the same data re-indexed in the doubled-c P21/c cell appear in the SI would help the reader follow the space-group argument.
  3. [SI Tables S1–S2] SI Tables S1–S2: anisotropic ADPs for oxygen and U23 for all atoms are fixed; this is reasonable given data quality, but a one-sentence justification (and the resulting R-factor change if they are freed) would be useful.
  4. [Abstract] Abstract and introduction: “enabling theoretical models to understand the emergence of superconductivity” is slightly overstated; the data enable such models, they do not yet perform them. Soften the phrasing.
  5. [References] References: several arXiv preprints are cited with future-looking dates (e.g., 2026); once the journal versions appear they should be updated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: pure experimental diffraction study; structural claims rest on measured intensities and refinements, not on self-referential definitions or fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper reports direct synchrotron single-crystal and powder X-ray diffraction results (reciprocal-space reconstructions, extinction rules, Le Bail/Rietveld fits, JANA2020 refinements of atomic positions and ADPs) that establish the ambient P21/c (or P21/n) superstructure from O4/O5 displacements, an upper bound on any CDW satellite intensity (<5e-5 of Bragg peaks), and the pressure sequence monoclinic o orthorhombic (~15 GPa) o tetragonal (onset ~18 GPa, complete ~21 GPa). These quantities are extracted from measured Bragg intensities and lattice metrics; none is defined in terms of the others or obtained by fitting a parameter that is then re-labeled a prediction. The only external overlay is the superconducting dome of Li et al. (Nature 2025), which is an independent transport measurement on crystals of the same synthesis batch; it is used solely for correlation, not as a premise that forces the structural assignments. No uniqueness theorems, self-citation load-bearing arguments, or ansatzes imported from the authors’ prior work appear in the derivation chain. The intermediate Amam assignment is acknowledged as point-group only, and data quality above ~20 GPa is noted as limited—both are experimental caveats, not circularities. The work is therefore self-contained against its own diffraction data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is measurement-driven. Load-bearing inputs are standard crystallographic practice (space-group subgroups, extinction rules, intensity significance thresholds), pressure calibration methods, and the external assumption that Li et al. SC data apply to the same batch. No new particles or forces are postulated; the antiferrodistortive motif is a descriptive label for refined oxygen positions.

free parameters (3)
  • Bulk modulus B0 (Birch–Murnaghan EOS) = 147.3(16) GPa
    Fitted to powder volume-vs-pressure data; reported B0 = 147.3(16) GPa, B'0 = 4.9(2). Used for comparison to La3Ni2O7 but not load-bearing for the space-group sequence.
  • La/Sm site occupancies = Sm2 ~0.11(3) ambient; similar under pressure
    Refined from diffraction intensities (e.g., Sm ~11% on inner layer); consistent with EDX and prior work but still free parameters of the structural model.
  • CDW intensity detection threshold = 5e-5 relative intensity
    Sensitivity stated as 5×10−5 of Bragg intensity, converted to displacement upper bound of a few thousandths of an Å via I ∝ u²; the numerical cutoff is an experimental choice that sets the null-result strength.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Extinction rules and subgroup relations correctly identify P21/c (c-doubled) / P21/n from observed l/2 reflections and systematic absences.
    Standard crystallographic group–subgroup analysis applied to reciprocal-space reconstructions (Figs. 1, S1–S2).
  • domain assumption Absence of satellite intensity above the stated threshold implies no sizeable displacive CDW (I ∝ u²).
    Standard kinematic diffraction argument; pure electronic CDW without lattice displacement remains allowed and is discussed.
  • domain assumption Ruby fluorescence and NaCl lattice parameters correctly calibrate pressure in the DAC.
    Standard high-pressure practice; used for all P-dependent claims.
  • ad hoc to paper Transport/SC phase diagram of Li et al. on identically synthesized crystals applies to the present samples.
    Explicitly used to claim SC onset coincides with monoclinic disappearance; no simultaneous resistivity on the diffracted crystals.
  • domain assumption Intensity equality of (hkl)/(h−k−l) and related pairs above 15 GPa establishes at least orthorhombic (point-group) symmetry.
    Used to locate the monoclinic–orthorhombic transition; Amam space group itself is only said to be consistent, not proven.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 23046 in / 3323 out tokens · 29407 ms · 2026-07-12T02:59:51.739339+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigated the structural properties of bilayer nickelate La$_2$SmNi$_2$O$_7$ as a function of pressure and temperature. At ambient conditions, we show that the material crystallizes as a monoclinic superstructure distinct from the one previously reported and close to the pseudo-orthorhombic structure of pristine La$_3$Ni$_2$O$_7$. No signatures of satellite reflections associated with charge density wave (CDW) ordering are detected at low temperature. Upon compression, a sequence of pressure-induced structural transitions from monoclinic to orthorhombic 15 GPa and then tetragonal 21 GPa symmetry is observed. Within the superconducting dome, the quality of the X-ray diffraction data enables structural refinements enabling theoretical models to understand the emergence of superconductivity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03363 by B. Vignolle, J. Huang, P. Fertey, P. Foury-Leylekian, P. Rodi\`ere, P. Toulemonde, Sitaram Ramakrishnan, Sourav Marik, V. Bal\'edent, Z. Rahmany.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (see also Fig. S1 of SI for measurements at 15 K). It evidences the presence of weak superlattice reflections having the experimental resolution and located at l/2 c ∗ . These superlattice reflections imply a doubling of the c unit cell parameter. Their intensity being 10−2 order of magnitude less than the principal Bragg reflections, they might have been missed in previous measurements performed with labo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H. Sun, M. Huo, X. Hu, J. Li, Z. Liu, Y. Han, L. Tang, Z. Mao, P. Yang, B. Wang, J. Cheng, D.-X. Yao, G.-M. Zhang, and M. Wang, Nature621, 493 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Wang, H.-H

    M. Wang, H.-H. Wen, T. Wu, D.-X. Yao, and T. Xiang, Chinese Physics Letters41, 077402 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    Zhang, D

    Y. Zhang, D. Su, Y. Huang, Z. Shan, H. Sun, M. Huo, 7 K. Ye, J. Zhang, Z. Yang, Y. Xu, Y. Su, R. Li, M. Smid- man, M. Wang, L. Jiao, and H. Yuan, Nature Physics 20, 1269 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Keimer, S

    B. Keimer, S. A. Kivelson, M. R. Norman, S. Uchida, and J. Zaanen, Nature , 179 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    Ishida, Y

    K. Ishida, Y. Nakai, and H. Hosono, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan78, 062001 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.78.062001

    work page doi:10.1143/jpsj.78.062001 2009

  6. [6]

    Q. Si, R. Yu, and E. Abrahams, Nature Reviews Materi- als , 16017 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    C. Lu, Z. Pan, F. Yang, and C. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 146002 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    L. Wang, Y. Li, S.-Y. Xie, F. Liu, H. Sun, C. Huang, Y. Gao, T. Nakagawa, B. Fu, B. Dong, Z. Cao, R. Yu, S. I. Kawaguchi, H. Kadobayashi, M. Wang, C. Jin, H.-k. Mao, and H. Liu, J. Am. Chem. Soc.146, 7506 (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    M. Shi, D. Peng, Y. Li, S. Yang, Z. Xing, Y. Wang, K. Fan, H. Li, R. Wu, B. Ge, Z. Zeng, Q. Zeng, J. Ying, T. Wu, and X. Chen, Nature Communications16, 9141 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    Z. Liu, H. Sun, M. Huo, X. Ma, Y. Ji, E. Yi, L. Li, H. Liu, J. Yu, Z. Zhang, Z. Chen, F. Liang, H. Dong, H. Guo, D. Zhong, B. Shen, S. Li, and M. Wang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.66, 217411 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    M. Xu, G. C. Jose, A. Rutherford, H. Wang, S. Zhang, R. J. Cava, H. Zhou, W. Bi, and W. Xie, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C130, 4911 (2026)

    2026

  12. [12]

    G. Wang, N. N. Wang, X. L. Shen, J. Hou, L. Ma, L. F. Shi, Z. A. Ren, Y. D. Gu, H. M. Ma, P. T. Yang, Z. Y. Liu, H. Z. Guo, J. P. Sun, G. M. Zhang, S. Calder, J.-Q. Yan, B. S. Wang, Y. Uwatoko, and J.-G. Cheng, Phys. Rev. X14, 011040 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    Z. Liu, M. Huo, J. Li, Q. Li, Y. Liu, Y. Dai, X. Zhou, J. Hao, Y. Lu, M. Wang, and H.-H. Wen, Nature Com- munications15, 7570 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Khasanov, T

    R. Khasanov, T. Hicken, G. D. J. J., V. Sazgari, I. Plokhikh, L. P. Sorel, M. Bartkowiak, S. B¨ otzel, F. Lechermann, I. M. Eremin, H. Luetkens, and Z. Guguchia, Nature Physics21, 430 (2025)

    2025

  15. [15]

    Kakoi, T

    M. Kakoi, T. Oi, Y. Ohshita, M. Yashima, K. Kuroki, T. Kato, H. Takahashi, S. Ishiwata, Y. Adachi, N. Hatada, T. Uda, and H. Mukuda, Journal of the Phys- ical Society of Japan93, 053702 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    X.-W. Yi, Y. Meng, J.-W. Li, Z.-W. Liao, W. Li, J.- Y. You, B. Gu, and G. Su, Phys. Rev. B110, L140508 (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    Puphal, P

    P. Puphal, P. Reiss, N. Enderlein, Y.-M. Wu, G. Khal- iullin, V. Sundaramurthy, T. Priessnitz, M. Knauft, A. Suthar, L. Richter, M. Isobe, P. A. van Aken, H. Tak- agi, B. Keimer, Y. E. Suyolcu, B. Wehinger, P. Hans- mann, and M. Hepting, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 146002 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    H. Wang, L. Chen, A. Rutherford, H. Zhou, and W. Xie, Inorganic Chemistry63, 5020 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    X. Chen, J. Zhang, A. S. Thind, S. Sharma, H. LaBol- lita, G. Peterson, H. Zheng, D. P. Phelan, A. S. Botana, R. F. Klie, and J. F. Mitchell, Journal of the American Chemical Society146, 3640 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    N. Wang, G. Wang, X. Shen, J. Hou, J. Luo, X. Ma, H. Yang, L. Shi, J. Dou, J. Feng, J. Yang, Y. Shi, Z. Ren, H. Ma, P. Yang, Z. Liu, Y. Liu, H. Zhang, X. Dong, Y. Wang, K. Jiang, J. Hu, S. Nagasaki, K. Kitagawa, S. Calder, J. Yan, J. Sun, B. Wang, R. Zhou, Y. Uwatoko, and J. Cheng, Nature634, 579 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    Z. Dong, G. Wang, N. Wang, W.-H. Dong, L. Gu, Y. Xu, J. Cheng, Z. Chen, and Y. Wang, Nature Materials24, 1927 (2025)

    1927

  22. [22]

    Z. Pan, C. Lu, F. Yang, and C. Wu, Chin. Phys. Lett. 41(2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    F. Li, Z. Xing, D. Peng, J. Dou, N. Guo, L. Ma, Y. Zhang, L. Wang, J. Luo, J. Yang, J. Zhang, T. Chang, Y.-S. Chen, W. Cai, J. Cheng, Y. Wang, Y. Liu, T. Luo, N. Hi- rao, and J. Zhang, Nature649, 871 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    Zhong, J

    Q. Zhong, J. Chen, Z. Qiu, J. Li, X. Huang, P. Ma, M. Huo, H. Dong, S. Deng, L. He, Y. Han, H. Sun, and M. Wang, Phys. Rev. B113, 174512 (2026)

    2026

  25. [25]

    Petˇ r´ ıˇ cek, M

    V. Petˇ r´ ıˇ cek, M. Duˇ sek, and L. Palatinus, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Kristallographie-Crystalline Materials229, 345 (2014)

    2014

  26. [26]

    Zhao and A

    Y.-F. Zhao and A. S. Botana, arXiv preprint (2026), arXiv:2606.16195 [cond-mat.supr-com]

    arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    C. C. Au-Yeung, X. Chen, S. Smit, M. Bluschke, V. Zimmermann, M. Michiardi, P. C. Moen, J. Kraan, C. S. B. Pang, C. T. Suen, S. Zhdanovich, M. Zonno, S. Gorovikov, Y. Liu, P. Dosanjh, G. Levy, I. S. Elfimov, M. Berciu, G. A. Sawatzky, J. F. Mitchell, and A. Dam- ascelli, Nature Physics , 1745 (2026/05/21)

    2026

  28. [28]

    Tsunoda, M

    Y. Tsunoda, M. Mori, N. Kunitomi, Y. Teraoka, and J. Kanamori, Solid State Communications14, 287 (1974)

    1974

  29. [29]

    Pouget and S

    J. Pouget and S. Ravy, Synthetic Metals85, 1523 (1997)

    1997

  30. [30]

    Ramakrishnan, Y

    S. Ramakrishnan, Y. Gao, V. Olevano, E. Pachoud, A. Hadj-Azzem, G. Gabarino, O. Perez, A. Pautrat, D. Valenti, M. Quenot, S. Pairis, D. Chernyshov, L. Noohinejad, C. Paulmann, J. Bulled, A. Bosak, S. van Smaalen, P. Toulemonde, M.-A. Measson, and P. Rodiere, arXiv preprint (2026), arXiv:2512.04975 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    G. Wang, N. Wang, T. Lu, S. Calder, J. Yan, L. Shi, J. Hou, L. Ma, L. Zhang, J. Sun, B. Wang, S. Meng, M. Liu, and J. Cheng, npj Quantum Materials10, 2397 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    Osada, C

    M. Osada, C. Terakura, H.-Y. Chen, A. Kikkawa, M. Nakajima, R. Asai, J.-B. Mor´ ee, Y. Nomura, R. Arita, Y. Tokura, and A. Tsukazaki, arXiv preprint (2026), arXiv:2605.20653 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Leroy, S.-W

    L. Leroy, S.-W. Huang, C.-C. Chiu, S.-Z. Ho, J. Dosseg- ger, C. Piamonteze, Y.-C. Chen, E. Abreu, A. Bombardi, J.-C. Yang, and U. Staub, Nano Letters25, 7651 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. Zhang, J. Li, M. P. K. Sahoo, X. He, J. Wang, and P. Ghosez, Phys. Rev. B108, 165117 (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    Q. Wu, C. Hu, D. Y. Zhang, H. Liu, B. Chen, Y. Zhou, Z.-T. Fu, C.-H. Lv, Z.-J. Xu, H.-L. Deng, M.-W. Huo, H. Y. Liu, J. Liu, Y. X. Duan, D.-X. Yao, M. Wang, and J.-Q. Meng, arXiv preprint (2026)

    2026

  36. [36]

    R. M. Fernandes, A. V. Chubukov, and J. Schmalian, Nature Physics97, 104 (2014)

    2014

  37. [37]

    J. P. Pouget, S. Kagoshima, C. Schlenker, and J. Marcus, J. Physique - Lettres44, L (1983)

    1983

  38. [38]

    J. M. Tranquada, B. J. Sternlieb, J. D. Axe, Y. Naka- mura, and S. Uchida, Nature375, 561 (1995)

    1995

  39. [39]

    Zhang, A

    J. Zhang, A. S. Phelan, D.and Botana, Y.-S. Chen, H. Zheng, M. Krogstad, S. G. Wang, Y. Qiu, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, R. Osborn, S. Rosenkranz, M. R. Nor- man, and J. F. Mitchell, Nature Communications11, 1 (2020)

    2020

  40. [40]

    Plokhikh, T

    I. Plokhikh, T. J. Hicken, L. Keller, V. Pomjakushin, S. H. Moody, P. Foury-Leylekian, J. J. Krieger, 8 H. Luetkens, Z. Guguchia, R. Khasanov, and D. J. Gawryluk, Phys. Rev. Res. (2026)

    2026

  41. [41]

    A. W. Overhauser, Phys. Rev.128, 1437 (1962)

    1962

  42. [42]

    C. Y. Young and J. B. Sokoloff, Journal of Physics F: Metal Physics4, 1304 (1974)

    1974

  43. [43]

    Michon, Y

    B. Michon, Y. Yu, B. D’Al` o, E. Stellino, G. N´ emeth, B. Wang, J. Sun, J. Cheng, P. Postorino, F. Borondics, and F. Capitani, arXiv preprint (2026), arXiv:2605.01651 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    Suthar, V

    A. Suthar, V. Sundaramurthy, M. Bejas, C. Le, P. Puphal, P. Sosa-Lizama, A. Schulz, J. Nuss, M. Isobe, P. A. van Aken, Y. E. Suyolcu, M. Minola, A. P. Schny- der, X. Wu, B. Keimer, G. Khaliullin, A. Greco, and M. Hepting, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2508.06440 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Fawcett, Rev

    E. Fawcett, Rev. Mod. Phys.60, 209 (1988)

    1988

  46. [46]

    Kumar, Øystein Fjellv˚ ag, A

    S. Kumar, Øystein Fjellv˚ ag, A. O. Sj˚ astad, and H. Fjellv˚ ag, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Mate- rials496, 165915 (2020)

    2020

  47. [47]

    J. Zhan, Y. Gu, X. Wu, and J. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 136002 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    B¨ otzel, A

    S. B¨ otzel, A. Al-Eryani, J. Zhan, X. Wu, F. Lechermann, M. M. Scherer, and I. M. Eremin, arXiv preprint (2026), arXiv:2606.23022 [cond-mat.supr-con]. Supplementary Information for Pressure-Driven Structural Transitions without a Displacive Charge-Density Wave in La 2SmNi2O7 J. Huang, 1, 2 Sitaram Ramakrishnan, 3 P. Rodi` ere,3 P. Toulemonde,3 Z. Rahmany...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  49. [49]

    V0 V 7/3 − V0 V 5/3#( 1 + 3 4(K ′ 0 −4)

    Reciprocal-space reconstruction and structural refinement ofLa 2SmNi2O7 at ambient pressure To clarify the difference between our results and the previous work of Li et al [1], reciprocal-space reconstructions were performed at ambient pressure. Fig. S1 shows the reconstruction at 15K. We observe weak reflections at half- integerlpositions in the (0kl) re...

  50. [50]

    F. Li, Z. Xing, D. Peng, J. Dou, N. Guo, L. Ma, Y. Zhang, L. Wang, J. Luo, J. Yang, J. Zhang, T. Chang, Y.-S. Chen, W. Cai, J. Cheng, Y. Wang, Y. Liu, T. Luo, N. Hirao, and J. Zhang, Nature649, 871 (2025). 9 TABLE S5: Crystallographic data of La 2SmNi2O7 for pressure at 3.5 GPa and 18.5 GPa at 10 K. For all data, the anisotropic ADPs of oxygen could not b...

    2025