Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Correlation-driven 3d Heavy Fermion behavior in LiV2O4

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that LiV2O4's heavy-fermion mass arises from a Hund-narrowed a1g band of about 25 meV plus a few-meV renormalization near the Fermi level tied to geometric frustration.

desk verdict The flat band and 3D ARPES map are solid and worth having, but the few-meV renormalization claim sits at the resolution limit and needs stronger support before it carries the heavy-fermion conclusion. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05237 v1 pith:GQXHMQX6 submitted 2025-09-05 cond-mat.str-el

Min-Yi-Nan Lei , Z. H. Chen , H. T. Wang , Y. Fan , N. Guo , T. X. Jiang , Yanwei Cao , T. Zhang
show 2 more authors
Rui Peng Haichao Xu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el PACS 71.27.+a79.60.-i
keywords heavyfermionLiV2O4Hund'scouplingorbital-selectiveMotttransitionARPESgeometricfrustrationdynamicalmean-fieldtheoryflatband
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 paper addresses a long-standing puzzle: how the 3d oxide LiV2O4 shows heavy-fermion thermodynamics despite having no f-electrons. Using angle-resolved photoemission on high-quality epitaxial films, the authors resolve a flat, electron-like band derived from a1g orbitals and a dispersive e'g band, and they show that the measured a1g bandwidth of roughly 25 meV matches dynamical mean-field theory calculations that include inter-orbital Hund's coupling. Closer to the Fermi level, the measured dispersion is flatter than a parabola, which the authors interpret as an additional few-meV renormalization that pushes the effective mass to at least 93 electron masses. They attribute this low-energy renormalization to coupling with short-range spin fluctuations rooted in the geometrically frustrated pyrochlore sublattice of vanadium atoms. If correct, the work establishes a 3d route to heavy-fermion behavior that does not rely on f-electron hybridization.

What carries the argument

The key object is the α band, an a1g-orbital-derived flat band whose full measured bandwidth of about 25 meV is the signature of Hund-assisted bandwidth narrowing, and whose near-Fermi dispersion deviates from parabolic form, providing evidence for a distinct few-meV renormalization. The argument is carried by comparing the measured dispersion with DFT and DMFT band structures, and by contrasting the parabolic fit over the whole bandwidth (mass about 19 me) with the linear Fermi-velocity fit near EF (mass at least 93 me), which separates the two renormalization scales.

What would settle it

Measure the α-band dispersion with sub-meV energy resolution at temperatures below 2 K on the same or equivalent films; if the near-Fermi dispersion remains parabolic and the extracted mass does not grow as the resolution improves, the claimed few-meV renormalization is not intrinsic and the heavy mass would have to come entirely from the Hund-narrowed bandwidth.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the heavy quasiparticles in LiV2O4 are carried by the a1g-derived α band. The measured dispersion of this band has a bandwidth of approximately 25 meV, strongly renormalized relative to density-functional theory and consistent with DMFT calculations that incorporate Hund's coupling, indicating that the a1g orbital sits close to a Mott state. Near the Fermi level, the dispersion deviates from a parabolic form; this flattening signals an additional renormalization on the few-meV scale, consistent with the heavy-quasiparticle energy scale kBT* ≈ 2.6 meV. The authors argue that this low-energy renormalization likely arises from coupling with short-range spin fluctuation

Load-bearing premise

The claim that heavy-fermion behavior comes from a separate few-meV renormalization rests on the measured flattening of the α-band dispersion near the Fermi level being intrinsic rather than an artifact of the 10–13 meV energy resolution applied to a band only about 25 meV wide.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LiV2O4 can exhibit heavy-fermion mass without f-electrons, through Hund-assisted Mott physics combined with low-energy renormalization.
  • DMFT with inter-orbital Hund's coupling captures the a1g bandwidth, supporting an orbital-selective Mott scenario for this compound.
  • The few-meV renormalization scale links the heavy mass to short-range spin fluctuations from geometric frustration, implying that electron-spin-fluctuation coupling leaves a measurable trace in the single-particle dispersion.
  • The flat band's spectral weight saturates above 50 K and its Fermi crossings do not move with temperature, distinguishing this 3d heavy-fermion mechanism from c-f Kondo hybridization in f-electron systems.
  • Sub-meV-resolution measurements below 2 K should reveal the fully developed heavy Fermi liquid state and a correspondingly larger effective mass.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that optical conductivity or quantum oscillation measurements could independently test the two-scale mass enhancement without relying on the shape of the dispersion fit near the Fermi level.
  • The paper's interpretation predicts that tuning frustration, for example by chemical substitution or strain on the vanadium sublattice, should shift both T* and the low-energy renormalization in a way that tracks the spin-fluctuation spectrum.
  • If the near-Fermi flattening is intrinsic, a temperature-dependent self-energy onset below roughly 30 K should be visible in laser-based ARPES with sub-meV resolution, a testable extension of the present data.
  • The reported 75 meV kink and possible two-phonon contribution in the β band imply substantial electron-phonon coupling; the authors' scenario implicitly requires that phonons do not dominate the α-band renormalization, which could be probed by isotope substitution or strain-dependent measurements.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an ARPES study of LiV2O4 thin films and claims to resolve the three-dimensional electronic structure near the Fermi level. Two bands are identified: a flat electron-like α band of a1g orbital character with a bandwidth of approximately 25 meV, and a highly dispersive β band of e'g character exhibiting kinks near 75 and 150 meV. Comparison with DFT and DMFT calculations is used to argue that inter-orbital Hund's coupling drives the strong narrowing of the a1g band, approaching an orbital-selective Mott state. Temperature-dependent measurements show that the flat-band spectral weight saturates below about 50 K and that the Fermi momentum does not change, distinguishing the system from c-f Kondo hybridization. Near EF, the α-band dispersion is reported to deviate from a parabola, leading the authors to infer an additional few-meV renormalization, a Fermi velocity vF = 0.034 eV·Å, and an effective mass of at least 93 m_e. This additional renormalization is suggested to arise from low-energy magnetic excitations associated with geometric frustration. The paper also analyzes the β band self-energy using MDC widths and Kramers-Kronig consistency.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a significant advance: it is the first direct ARPES determination of the 3D electronic structure of LiV2O4 and provides experimental support for the DMFT/Hund-metal picture of a1g bandwidth narrowing. The main α-band observation is strengthened by consistency across photon energies, temperatures, polarization, and by independent concurrent work (Ref. 41). The β-band kink analysis with a Kramers-Kronig constraint is careful. However, the paper's most novel quantitative claim—an additional few-meV renormalization producing m* ≥ 93 m_e—rests on a subtle deviation from a parabolic fit at the edge of the experimental resolution. The robust part of the paper is the Hund-assisted narrowing to 25 meV; the few-meV mechanism is plausible but not yet established. The paper should therefore be considered promising but in need of a substantial revision that either places the few-meV evidence on firmer footing or clearly reframes it as a tentative observation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, 'An electron-like dispersion of the α band...'; Fig. 4(n)] The additional few-meV renormalization and the resulting m* ≥ 93 m_e rest entirely on the deviation from a parabolic fit of the α-band dispersion. The EDC peak positions are extracted at 50 K with 10 meV energy resolution from data that were divided by a resolution-convolved Fermi–Dirac function (Fig. 4(l); Appendix D). No control simulation is provided to show that the apparent flattening near EF is not produced by FD division, resolution broadening, or the background subtraction described in Appendix E. No error bars are given for vF = 0.034 eV·Å or for the parabolic slope at EF, and no model comparison (bare parabola vs. kink self-energy) is presented. Since this deviation is the only direct evidence for a distinct few-meV scale, the central heavy-fermion claim is not yet supported quantitatively.
  2. [Appendix D and Section 2 (last paragraph)] The temperature independence of the α dispersion at 6 K, 20 K and 50 K is presented as evidence that the apparent flattening is intrinsic, but all three temperatures are measured with the same energy resolution and the same FD-division procedure; temperature independence of an artifact is expected. The manuscript itself concedes that 'an accurate determination of the effective mass and full characterization of the quasiparticle dispersion will require sub-meV energy resolution at temperatures below 2 K' (Section 2). This is an explicit acknowledgement that the present data cannot resolve the few-meV scale claimed. The authors should provide a resolution-deconvolution analysis, a control simulation with a known bare band, or alternatively downgrade the few-meV claim to a tentative suggestion.
  3. [Fig. 4(n) and Section 2] The effective mass is estimated by comparing the fitted vF with the slope of a parabolic estimation at EF. No uncertainty is propagated from the EDC peak fits, no systematic uncertainty on kF or the band bottom is given, and no alternative baseline (e.g., a linear band with a low-energy kink) is tested. With a band only ~25 meV wide and the limited number of points shown in Fig. 4(n), the parabolic baseline is not uniquely determined. The stated agreement with the specific-heat mass (180 m_e) is therefore a qualitative plausibility argument, not a quantitative validation, and the factor-of-two discrepancy attributed to resolution is not supported by any estimate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2(g) and Ref. 16] The DMFT comparison is central to the Hund-coupling claim, but the computational parameters (U, J, doping, temperature) are not given in the text. Please state whether the calculation is reproduced unchanged from Ref. 16 and list the relevant parameters, or refer explicitly to the Supplemental Material of that work.
  2. [Fig. 4(m)] Peak positions are described as determined by 'local maxima or shoulders'. Shoulders are substantially less reliable than maxima. Please indicate which points are maxima and which are shoulders, or use a consistent fitting procedure with uncertainties.
  3. [Appendix E] The background subtraction for the flat-band weight is described only briefly. Please explain how the resolution-convolved Fermi–Dirac background is scaled from 100 K to the other temperatures, and how the choice of integration window [EF-0.05 eV, EF+0.05 eV] affects the extracted weight.
  4. [Note before Acknowledgements] The independent concurrent study (Ref. 41) is mentioned only in a brief note. Since that study also reports the flat band, it would be useful to state explicitly whether it also sees the additional few-meV renormalization near EF, as this bears directly on the central claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the heavy-fermion claim is derived from measured ARPES dispersions and an external DMFT comparison, not from fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is experimental rather than circular. The 25 meV a1g bandwidth is obtained from measured ARPES dispersions and compared to external DMFT calculations (Ref. 16, by different authors). The parabolic estimate of 19 m_e is a fit to the measured band bottom and Fermi crossing, and the subsequent 93 m_e estimate follows from a separately measured low-energy Fermi velocity vF = 0.034 eV·Å; neither quantity is a fitted parameter that is then renamed as a prediction. The claimed few-meV 'additional renormalization' is presented as the observed deviation of the α-band dispersion from a simple parabola near EF, and the paper explicitly acknowledges the need for sub-meV resolution below 2 K to determine it accurately, which is a limitation rather than a circular step. The self-citations (Refs. 35 and 40) are used only as comparative experimental examples from CeCoIn5 and NiS2-xSex, not as load-bearing premises for the central claim. The DMFT agreement is supported by an independent published calculation, and the self-energy analysis uses standard MDC/EDC fitting constrained by the Kramers-Kronig relation. No equation or construction in the paper makes the predicted mass equivalent to its inputs.

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

The central claim rests on four fitted inputs: the inner potential for kz mapping, the assumed bare band for self-energy extraction, the parabolic/linear baseline fits used to derive the mass enhancement, and the background model for flat-band weight. No new entities are invented; the 'frustration-driven excitations' are the known low-energy spin fluctuations referenced from prior neutron and NMR work. The orbital character assignments depend on external DMFT calculations and are not independently confirmed.

free parameters (4)
  • Inner potential V0 = 15 eV
    Used to convert photon energy to kz; estimated to match band periodicity; affects the 3D Fermi surface mapping in Fig. 2(a).
  • Bare band dispersion for β self-energy = not quoted (slope v0_F)
    Chosen from 'large-scale spectra' and constrained so that ReΣ and ImΣ satisfy Kramers-Kronig; the choice directly sets the renormalization factor Z=3.4.
  • Parabolic and linear baseline fits for α band = 19 me parabolic mass; vF = 0.034 eV·Å
    The difference between these fits produces the 'additional renormalization' and the 93 me mass estimate; both fits are to the same narrow (25 meV) dispersion.
  • Background Fermi-Dirac fit for flat band weight = parameters not quoted
    Used in Appendix E to subtract incoherent background from EDCs; affects the temperature-dependence claim in Fig. 4(j).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The α band is a1g and the β band is e'g (orbital character).
    Assigned from DMFT calculations (Ref 16); polarization dependence is suggestive but 'direct analysis ... is challenging' (Appendix B).
  • domain assumption A ~75 meV phonon exists in LiV2O4.
    Inferred from optical reflectivity of similar spinels (MgTi2O4, ZnCr2O4, NiFe2O4), not measured in LiV2O4; the authors call for future phonon measurements.
  • domain assumption The annealed film surface represents the bulk electronic structure.
    Surface quality is checked by structural probes (XRD, RHEED, LEED, STM) and transport, but there is no direct verification that the region probed by ARPES is stoichiometrically identical to bulk after 300-500°C annealing.
  • standard math Kramers-Kronig relation holds for the extracted self-energy.
    Used to constrain the bare band choice in the self-energy analysis (Fig. 3d); it is a standard mathematical property of causal response functions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Correlation-driven 3d Heavy Fermion behavior in LiV2O4." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GQXHMQX6

@misc{pith2026250905237,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Correlation-driven 3d Heavy Fermion behavior in LiV2O4},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GQXHMQX6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05237}
}
read the original abstract

LiV2O4 is a spinel-structured compound that stands out as the first known 3d-electron system exhibiting typical heavy fermion behavior. A central question is how such strong mass renormalization emerges in the absence of f-electrons. In this work, we investigate the three-dimensional electronic structure of LiV2O4 thin films using angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES). We identify that an electron-like flat band is derived from a1g orbitals, along with a highly dispersive e'g band strongly coupled with phonons. The overall agreement with dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT) calculations highlights the essential role of inter-orbital Hund's coupling in reducing the a1g bandwidth to 25 meV, approaching a Mott state. Notably, we find that heavy-fermion behavior arises from additional renormalization at the a1g band near the Fermi level, likely driven by many-body interactions at energy scales down to a few meV and potentially linked to geometric frustration inherent to the spinel lattice. These results provide crucial insights into the origin of the heavy fermion behavior in 3d-electron systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05237 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introduction . Heavy fermion materials have long attracted interest in condensed matter physics due to the correlation-driven exotic quantum states, such as unconve n- tional superconductivity and complex magnetic orders [ 1– 6]. In typical heavy fermion systems, such as CeCoIn 5 [7] and CeCu 2Si2 [8], strong electronic correlations have typi- cally been ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Correlation-driven 3d Heavy Fermion behavior in LiV2O4

    Results. Atomically flat LiV 2O4 thin films were grown on Nb:SrTiO3(111) substrates for ARPES studies [Fig. 1(b)]. We fabricated films with a thickness of 72 nm by ablating ce- ramic targets with a KrF excimer laser ( λ = 248 nm, repetition rate 10 Hz, fluence 0.6 J/cm 2) under an argon partial pressure of 1 × 10−4 mbar at a substrate temperature of 450 ◦C. B...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    The entire bandwidth of α is substantially renormalized with respect to DFT calculations [Fig

    Discussions. The entire bandwidth of α is substantially renormalized with respect to DFT calculations [Fig. 2(g)]. Such bandwidth narrowing and mass enhancement are char- acteristic of strong electron correlationsand are commonl y observed in systems near Mott transitions. For example, in NiS 2−xSex, increasing correlation strength gradually re- duces the...

    work page

  4. [4]

    White, J

    B. White, J. Thompson, and M. Maple, Physica C 514, 246 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    G. R. Stewart, Adv. Phys. 66, 75 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Machida, M

    K. Machida, M. Ozaki, and T. Ohmi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 58, 4116 (1989)

    work page 1989

  7. [7]

    G. R. Stewart, Rev. Mod. Phys. 56, 755 (1984)

    1984

  8. [8]

    Bauer, G

    E. Bauer, G. Hilscher, H. Michor, C. Paul, E.-W. Scheidt, A. Gribanov, Y . Seropegin, H. No¨ el, M. Sigrist, and P . Rogl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 027003 (2004)

    work page 2004

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Schr¨ oder, G

    A. Schr¨ oder, G. Aeppli, R. Coldea, M. Adams, O. Stockert, H. L¨ ohneysen, E. Bucher, R. Ramazashvili, and P . Coleman, Nature 407, 351 (2000)

    2000

  2. [10]

    M. P . Allan, F. Massee, D. Morr, J. V an Dyke, A. W. Rost, A. Mackenzie, C. Petrovic, and J. C. Davis, Nat. Phys. 9, 468 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Steglich, J

    F. Steglich, J. Aarts, C. D. Bredl, W. Lieke, D. Meschede, W. Franz, and H. Sch¨ afer, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 1892 (1979)

    1979

  4. [12]

    Fulde, J

    P . Fulde, J. Keller, and G. Zwicknagl, Solid State Physics 41, 1 (1988)

    1988

  5. [13]

    Shimoyamada, S

    A. Shimoyamada, S. Tsuda, K. Ishizaka, T. Kiss, T. Shimojima, T. Togashi, S. Watanabe, C. Zhang, C. Chen, Y . Matsushita, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 026403 (2006)

    2006

  6. [14]

    Kondo, D

    S. Kondo, D. Johnston, C. Swenson, F. Borsa, A. Mahajan, L. Miller, T. Gu, A. Goldman, M. Maple, D. Gajewski, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3729 (1997)

    1997

  7. [15]

    Johnston, Physica B 281-282, 21 (2000)

    D. Johnston, Physica B 281-282, 21 (2000)

    2000

  8. [16]

    Anisimov, M

    V . Anisimov, M. Korotin, M. Z¨ olfl, T. Pruschke, K. Le Hur, and T. Rice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 364 (1999)

    1999

  9. [17]

    I. A. Nekrasov, Z. Pchelkina, G. Keller, T. Pruschke, K. Held , A. Krimmel, D. V ollhardt, and V . Anisimov, Phys. Rev. B 67, 085111 (2003)

    2003

  10. [18]

    Arita, K

    R. Arita, K. Held, A. Lukoyanov, and V . Anisimov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 166402 (2007)

    2007

  11. [19]

    Grundner, F

    M. Grundner, F. B. Kugler, O. Parcollet, U. Schollw¨ ock, A. Georges, and A. Hampel, Phys. Rev. B112, L041106 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    K. Knox, A. Abeykoon, H. Zheng, W. Yin, A. Tsvelik, J. Mitchell, S. Billinge, and E. Bozin, Phys. Rev. B 88, 174114 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    J. Lee, J. Ma, S. Hahn, H. Cao, M. Lee, T. Hong, H. Lee, M. Yeom, S. Okamoto, and H. Zhou, Sci. Rep. 7, 17129 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Urano, M

    C. Urano, M. Nohara, S. Kondo, F. Sakai, H. Takagi, T. Shiraki, and T. Okubo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1052 (2000)

    2000

  15. [23]

    J¨ onsson, K

    P . J¨ onsson, K. Takenaka, S. Niitaka, T. Sasagawa, S. Sugai,and H. Takagi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 167402 (2007)

    2007

  16. [24]

    Matsushita, H

    Y . Matsushita, H. Ueda, and Y . Ueda, Nat. Mater.4, 845 (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    Niemann, Y .-M

    U. Niemann, Y .-M. Wu, R. Oka, D. Hirai, Y . Wang, Y . E. Suy- olcu, M. Kim, P . A. van Aken, and H. Takagi, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 120, e2215722120 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Yajima, T

    T. Yajima, T. Soma, K. Y oshimatsu, N. Kurita, M. Watanabe, and A. Ohtomo, Phys. Rev. B 104, 245104 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    C. Tang, Z. Lin, J. Zhang, X. Guo, Y . Zhong, J. Guan, S. Gao, Z. Rao, J. Zhao, Y . Huang, et al. , npj Quantum Mater. 7, 53 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Hofmann, I

    P . Hofmann, I. Y . Sklyadneva, E. Rienks, and E. V . Chulkov, New J. Phys. 11, 125005 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    A. B. Sushkov, O. Tchernyshyov, W. R. II, S. W. Cheong, and H. D. Drew, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 137202 (2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    H. Lutz, B. M¨ uller, and H. Steiner, J. Solid State Chem. 90, 54 (1991)

    1991

  23. [31]

    S.-H. Lee, Y . Qiu, C. Broholm, Y . Ueda, and J. J. Rush, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5554 (2001)

    2001

  24. [32]

    G. He, Y . Jia, X. Hou, Z. Wei, H. Xie, Z. Yang, J. Shi, J. Y uan, L. Shan, B. Zhu, et al., Phys. Rev. B 95, 054510 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    N. W. Ashcroft and N. Mermin, Solid state physics (1976)

    1976

  26. [34]

    Lee, J.-J

    N.-E. Lee, J.-J. Zhou, H.-Y . Chen, and M. Bernardi, Nat. Com- mun. 11, 1607 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Fr¨ ohlich, Adv

    H. Fr¨ ohlich, Adv. Phys.3, 325 (1954)

    1954

  28. [36]

    V ogl, Phys

    P . V ogl, Phys. Rev. B13, 694 (1976)

    1976

  29. [37]

    C. Liu, R. P . Day, F. Li, R. L. Roemer, S. Zhdanovich, S. Gorovikov, T. M. Pedersen, J. Jiang, S. Lee, M. Schneider, et al., Nat. Commun. 12, 4573 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Q. Y . Chen, D. F. Xu, X. H. Niu, J. Jiang, R. Peng, H. C. Xu, C. H. P . Wen, Z. F. Ding, K. Huang, L. Shu, Y . J. Zhang, H. Lee, V . N. Strocov, M. Shi, F. Bisti, T. Schmitt, Y . B. Huang, P . Dudin, X. C. Lai, S. Kirchner, H. Q. Y uan, and D. L. Feng, Phys. Rev. B 96, 045107 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    X. Deng, K. M. Stadler, K. Haule, A. Weichselbaum, J. von Delft, and G. Kotliar, Nat. Commun. 10, 2721 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Shimizu, H

    Y . Shimizu, H. Takeda, M. Tanaka, M. Itoh, S. Niitaka, and H. Takagi, Nat. Commun. 3, 981 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    Reinert, D

    F. Reinert, D. Ehm, S. Schmidt, G. Nicolay, S. H¨ ufner, J. Kroha, O. Trovarelli, and C. Geibel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 106401 (2001)

    2001

  34. [42]

    Z. Wu, Y . Fang, H. Su, W. Xie, P . Li, Y . Wu, Y . Huang, D. Shen, B. Thiagarajan, J. Adell, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 067002 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    H. C. Xu, Y . Zhang, M. Xu, R. Peng, X. P . Shen, V . N. Strocov, M. Shi, M. Kobayashi, T. Schmitt, B. P . Xie, and D. L. Feng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 087603 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    D. Oh, A. Hampel, J. P . Wakefield, P . Moen, S. Smit, X. Luo, M. Zonno, S. Gorovikov, M. Leandersson, C. Polley, A. K. Kundu, A. Rajapitamahuni, E. V escovo, C. Jozwiak, A. Bostwick, E. Rotenberg, M. Isobe, M. V erma, M. Crispino, M. Grundner, F. B. Kugler, O. Parcollet, U. Sc...

    2025

Pith tools

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