Strain-tunable type-II to type-III & Gimbal nodal line transition in Imm2-phase of Cu$_2$SnS$_3$: An ab-initio study

Prakash Pandey; Sudhir K. Pandey

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 131 references

Strain-tunable type-II to type-III & Gimbal nodal line transition in Imm2-phase of Cu$_2$SnS$_3$: An ab-initio study

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Mechanical strain can multiply the single nodal ring of the semimetal Cu2SnS3 into as many as seven intersecting loops, including 'topological gimbals' made of three mutually orthogonal rings.

desk verdict A systematic strain scan of a known nodal-line material with new multi-ring and gimbal geometries, but the paper's own SOC table puts the real-material claim in doubt. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07618 v1 pith:LSX4CSUP submitted 2025-07-10 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Prakash Pandey , Sudhir K. Pandey This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords Cu2SnS3nodallinesemimetalstrainengineeringtype-IItopologicalgimbalspin-orbitcouplingdensityfunctionaltheoryphasetransition

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 sets out to show that the nodal-line semimetal phase of Cu2SnS3 in its Imm2 crystal structure is highly responsive to mechanical strain. Using density-functional calculations, it argues that uniaxial strain can rotate the plane of the material's single nodal loop, and that biaxial and triaxial tensile strain can split that one loop into three, five, or even seven loops. The most striking claimed outcome is a 'topological gimbal' configuration under equi-biaxial tensile strain along the a and c directions, made of two sets of three mutually orthogonal intersecting nodal loops. These results matter because a material whose topological loop structure can be switched by strain would offer a tunable platform for anisotropic transport, thermoelectric, and magnetotransport devices.

What carries the argument

The central object is the nodal line itself: a closed loop in three-dimensional momentum space along which the highest occupied and lowest unoccupied bands are degenerate at the Fermi level. The paper locates these loops with first-principles density-functional calculations and a numerical function-minimization search for band crossings in the Brillouin zone. The strain dependence is obtained by directly rescaling the lattice parameters, and the dependence on spin-orbit coupling is studied by artificially reducing the speed of light in the calculation, which increases the SOC strength in controlled steps.

What would settle it

Repeat the band-structure calculation for Cu2SnS3 under 6% to 8% equi-biaxial tensile strain along a and c with spin-orbit coupling included at its physical strength of 82.56 meV per formula unit; if the nodal loops are replaced by gapped bands or Weyl points, the claimed one-to-seven loop transition does not survive real spin-orbit coupling. Alternatively, strain a thin film and look for the predicted loops with angle-resolved photoemission.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that strain acts as a topological control parameter in Cu2SnS3. In the unstrained Imm2 phase the compound hosts exactly one type-II nodal ring, with its band crossing confined to the kx-kz plane. The paper reports that compressive uniaxial strain along a rotates this loop into the ky-kz plane at 6% to 8% strain, while tensile uniaxial strain leaves its plane intact. Under equi-biaxial tensile strain along a and c, the single ring proliferates at 6% to 8% strain into seven rings: three in the kx-kz plane, two in the ky-kz plane, and two in a general plane, among which two sets of three mutually orthogonal intersecting loops (the 'topological gimbals') can be identified. Under equi-triaxial tensile strain, one ring becomes five. The paper also reports that the nodal-line phase survives only while the spin-orbit-coupling energy stays below about 1.5 meV per formula unit; at 1.9 meV the line degenerates into a Weyl phase, and at the physical SOC strength of 82.56 meV the nodal line is gone.

Load-bearing premise

The strain maps are computed as if spin-orbit coupling were negligible, but the paper's own results show that physical spin-orbit coupling in this compound destroys the nodal line, so the predicted multi-loop phases may not exist in the real material.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Under uniaxial compressive strain along the a direction, the nodal loop rotates from the kx-kz plane to the ky-kz plane at 6% to 8% strain, giving a way to switch the direction of transport anisotropy.
Equi-biaxial tensile strain along a and c multiplies the single loop into seven loops at 6% to 8% strain, creating two sets of three mutually orthogonal intersecting loops, the paper's 'topological gimbals.'
Equi-triaxial tensile strain of 6% to 8% produces five nodal loops, which the paper ties to anisotropic Berry-curvature hot spots and direction-dependent Hall responses.
For several compressive strain directions, beyond a threshold between 6% and 8% the nodal line disappears entirely and does not reappear, acting as a topological on-off switch.
Because up to 8% strain is experimentally achievable, the claimed transitions are in principle reachable in real samples, enabling strain-tunable topological devices.

Reading between the lines

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

If physical spin-orbit coupling in Cu2SnS3 is as strong as the paper's own table indicates, the strained multi-loop phases would be gapped in real samples; a lighter substitution on the tin site might preserve the predicted strain response, but that is a separate chemical system not computed here.
The 'topological gimbal' geometry, if realized, would produce a Berry phase of π along each of three mutually orthogonal loops; a natural next step is to compute the resulting surface-state pattern and optical selection rules to see whether gimbal loops can be distinguished from ordinary intersecting nodal lines.
The paper's strain maps keep the crystal symmetry fixed; allowing the atomic positions to relax under strain could shift the thresholds, so the precise strain windows are a prediction to test rather than a measured fact.
A direct experimental check would be to grow strained films of Cu2SnS3 and use photoemission to look for the drumhead surface states associated with the predicted loops, or to measure the resistivity anisotropy as a function of strain direction.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Quick take: this is a straightforward DFT strain scan of Cu2SnS3 with a genuinely new set of multi-ring geometries (one-to-three, one-to-five, one-to-seven, and the 'gimbal' arrangement) under equi-biaxial and equi-triaxial strain. If those results described the physical material, they would be a useful map for transport and thermoelectric proposals. But as written, the paper's own SOC table undermines the central claim, and there is an unresolved threshold mismatch.

What's good: the strain scan is systematic (uniaxial, biaxial, triaxial; 2% steps; up to 8%) and the fitted nodal-loop figures are reproducible in principle. The gimbal motif, two sets of three mutually orthogonal intersecting loops, is not in the cited literature. The artificial-SOC scan in Table I is a sensible way to probe robustness, and the suggestion of Sn substitution to reduce SOC is at least a concrete response.

Where it falls down: the strained-cell calculations never state whether SOC is included. Table I says physical SOC (82.56 meV/f.u.) destroys the nodal line and gives a Weyl phase. If the strain maps are spinless, the one-to-seven and gimbal transitions belong to a hypothetical model, not to Cu2SnS3; if they include SOC, they contradict Table I unless strain restores the nodal line, which is neither computed nor argued. That is a load-bearing omission, not a style issue.

Second, the abstract says a-c EBCS keeps one nodal ring up to 7%; the body says it vanishes beyond 3.5%. That is a factual inconsistency a referee would need fixed before anything else. The topological labels (Weyl, type-II/type-III, gimbal) are asserted without a symmetry or Berry-phase check; the title promises a type-II to type-III transition but the body mostly defers to an earlier paper. No input structures, band-structure files, or convergence tests are provided, which hurts but is secondary.

Net: the strain scan is substantial enough that a serious referee could turn it into a useful paper, but only if the authors clarify the SOC regime and restrict every claim to that regime. I'd send it to review rather than desk reject, with the expectation of major revision. I would not cite it in this form.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports DFT (WIEN2k, GGA/APW+lo) calculations of the nodal-line phase of Imm2 Cu2SnS3 and its evolution under uniaxial, equi-biaxial, and equi-triaxial strain, using the PY-Nodes minimization search. It first claims that the nodal line survives SOC strengths up to 1.5 meV, that a Weyl phase emerges at 1.9 meV, and that this Weyl phase remains stable up to the physical SOC strength of 82.56 meV. It then maps the nodal-line geometry versus strain: uniaxial a-axis compression rotates the loop from the kx-kz plane to the ky-kz plane at 6-8%; a-c equi-biaxial tension produces a one-to-seven loop splitting at 6-8% with two triples of mutually orthogonal intersecting loops, called 'topological gimbals'; and equi-triaxial tension produces five loops at 6-8%. Compressive biaxial and triaxial strains eventually destroy the nodal line. The abstract and the body disagree on the a-c EBCS threshold (7% versus 3.5%).

Significance. Should the strain maps describe the real compound, the paper would offer a concrete route to strain-engineer the number, plane, and connectivity of nodal loops, with potential directional transport and device applications; the predicted one-to-seven and one-to-five transitions are falsifiable and the computational workflow is transparent. The starting point is anchored in the authors' earlier identification of Cu2SnS3 as a single-ring type-II NLSM, and the strain maps are generated with standard codes and documented fit curves. However, the significance is conditional because Section III A shows that physical SOC converts the system to a Weyl phase; if the strained-cell calculations are spinless, the headline structures are not properties of Cu2SnS3 itself. The paper's possible value as a systematic nodal-line catalog in the spinless limit remains, but that is not what the abstract claims.

major comments (4)

[Sec. III A / Table I; Sec. III B] The paper's own Table I and Section III A show that the nodal line is absent at physical SOC: the text states that at 1.9 meV the phase becomes Weyl and 'remaining stable up to an SOC strength of 82.56 meV, corresponding to value of c=137.03 a.u.' Section III B never states whether the strained-cell calculations include SOC, and the Computational Details report only GGA/APW+lo. If the strain maps are spinless, the one-to-seven and topological-gimbal transitions are results for a hypothetical spinless model and must be labeled as such; if they include SOC, they are inconsistent with Table I unless strain restores the nodal line, which is neither computed nor argued. The authors should either repeat the key strain calculations at the physical SOC value or explicitly reframe the entire study as a spinless-model analysis and state the limitation in the abstract, because as written the central claim is not supported for Cu2SnS3.
[Abstract; Sec. III B] The abstract states that under equi-biaxial compressive strain along the a-c directions Cu2SnS3 'exhibits only one nodal ring up to 8% (7%)' and that beyond this threshold the nodal line vanishes, while Section III B states for the same strain that 'beyond 3.5%, the nodal line completely vanishes' and that the nodal-line phase exists only for 0%≤EBCS≤3.5%. These two thresholds cannot both be correct; the authors must identify the actual threshold and correct the conflicting statement.
[Sec. II; Sec. III B] The strained-unit-cell calculations are described only by changing lattice parameters, and the paper gives optimized Wyckoff positions for 0% strain but does not state whether internal coordinates were re-relaxed at each strain. If the internal coordinates are held fixed at the unstrained values, the nodal-line maps may describe metastable structures with finite forces. The authors should specify the relaxation protocol for each strained cell, or justify that internal relaxation is negligible for the reported nodal-line topology.
[Fig. 2(g); Sec. III B] The claimed disappearance threshold for EBCS along a-c is not visible in the data shown: Fig. 2(g) displays strains from -2% to +8%, but the text states that the nodal line vanishes beyond 3.5% (or 7% in the abstract). The reader cannot verify the threshold from the presented figure; either include the nodal-line search at larger compressive strains or state explicitly that those results are in the Supplementary Material.

minor comments (6)

[Title; Sec. III B] The title contains a typo ('tran sition'), and the mixed capitalization of 'Gimbal' should be cleaned up to match standard space-group notation.
[Sec. III B (uniaxial a)] In the UTS paragraph, 'within the range of 2% ≤ UCS≤ 8%' should read UTS.
[Sec. III B (equi-biaxial b-c)] In the EBCS paragraph for the b-c direction, '0%≤ EBTS≤8%' should read EBCS.
[Sec. III B (equi-triaxial)] In the ETCS paragraph, the phrase '0%≤ EBTS≤6%' should read ETCS.
[Fig. 2 caption] The caption for panels (a)-(c) says '0% to -4%, and -6% to -10%' for the a-direction, but the text reports compressive strains only down to -8%; the caption should be corrected.
[References [99]] The supplementary material is cited as 'this link' without a URL or DOI, which is not acceptable in a submitted manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: strain-dependent nodal-line counts are direct first-principles outputs; the same-group citations are background and code references, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central results are computed, not fitted: the nodal lines under each strain are located with the PY-Nodes code from WIEN2k GGA/APW+lo band structures, and the reported one-to-seven, five-loop, and 'topological gimbal' configurations are outputs of those gap-minimization searches. No equation in Sec. III B defines a nodal-line count or orientation in terms of a fitted parameter, and the curve fits in Fig. 2 are descriptive shape fits made after the nodal lines were found, not inputs that force the transitions. The starting type-II classification at 0% strain and the earlier type-II-to-type-III claim are cited to the authors' own preprints [60, 71], so there is a mild self-reliance pattern; however, the 0% nodal line is also shown among the computed strain maps in Fig. 2, and the new multi-line strain responses are independently produced by the same DFT pipeline rather than imported from those preprints. Similarly, the use of the authors' own PY-Nodes search code [76] is a methodological tool, not a smuggled ansatz. The Table I result that physical SOC (82.56 meV) destroys the nodal line in favor of Weyl nodes is a serious physical-validity concern for the SOC-free strain maps, but it is a consistency/correctness issue, not a circularity: no target quantity is defined in terms of, or reduced to, a fitted value or a self-citation. Overall, no circular step can be exhibited, and the work is best described as self-contained in its computational derivation, with minor self-reliance that does not rise to load-bearing circularity.

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

The central strain maps are outputs of a first-principles pipeline, so the burden is in modeling assumptions rather than fitted constants. No parameter is fit to reproduce the nodal lines. The load-bearing premises are PBE accuracy, the zero-SOC regime of the strain runs, the fixed Imm2 lattice without stated internal relaxation, and the topological protection of the found crossings.

free parameters (1)

Speed-of-light scaling factor for artificial SOC scan = c varied from 1370.3 to 548.1 a.u. (SOC 0 to 1.9 meV); c=137.03 gives 82.56 meV
Chosen by hand to sweep SOC strength in Sec. III A. It is not fitted to reproduce data, but the 'critical SOC' of 1.9 meV is a paper-defined tuning parameter.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption GGA-PBE Kohn-Sham band crossings faithfully represent the true nodal-line topology of Cu2SnS3.
The paper uses PBE without GW or hybrid corrections and directly identifies nodal lines from DFT crossings; Sec. II.
ad hoc to paper Strained unit cells can be modeled by changing lattice parameters while retaining the Imm2 structure, without documented relaxation of internal coordinates.
Sec. III B says the unit cell is strained in a given direction only; no internal-coordinate relaxation protocol is described, and nodal-line geometry depends on Wyckoff positions.
domain assumption The crossings found by PY-Nodes are topologically protected rather than accidental band degeneracies.
The text labels the loops 'topological' but provides no symmetry indicator, invariant, or surface-state calculation; Sec. III B.
ad hoc to paper Spin-orbit coupling is negligible in all strained-cell calculations.
The strain sections never state the SOC treatment, while Sec. III A shows that physical SOC strength turns the phase into a Weyl phase; the strain maps silently assume the zero-SOC regime.

invented entities (1)

Topological gimbal (two sets of three mutually orthogonal intersecting nodal loops)
purpose: Names the multi-loop geometry reported for a-c equi-biaxial tensile strain at 6-8%.
The paper introduces the term and the loop geometry, but computes no separate observable, invariant, or experimental signature for it.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strain-tunable type-II to type-III & Gimbal nodal line transition in Imm2-phase of Cu$_2$SnS$_3$: An ab-initio study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LSX4CSUP

@misc{pith2026250707618,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strain-tunable type-II to type-III & Gimbal nodal line transition in Imm2-phase of Cu$_2$SnS$_3$: An ab-initio study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LSX4CSUP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07618}
}

abstract

Topological nodal line semimetals (NLSMs) represent an intriguing quantum phase, opening new avenues in materials science for practical applications such as anisotropic transport devices, high-mobility conductors, unconventional thermoelectrics, and nonlinear optical devices. Recently, Cu$_2$SnS$_3$ has been theoretically proposed as a type-II NLSM, with its Fermi surface containing only one nodal ring. Here, we demonstrate how uniaxial, equi-biaxial, and equi-triaxial strains affect the nodal line state of the $Imm2$-phase of Cu$_2$SnS$_3$ by using state-of-the-art ab-initio calculations. Under the application of uniaxial compressive strain (UCS) along the a-direction, the plane of the nodal line evolves from the $k_x$-$k_z$ to $k_y$-$k_z$ for 6\%$\leq$UCS$\leq$8\%. In contrast, under uniaxial tensile strain (UTS), the nodal line remains in the ($k_x$-$k_z$) plane across the entire studied range of UTS. Interestingly, on the application of equi-biaxial tensile strain (EBTS) along a-b (a-c) directions, it hosts only one nodal ring below 8\% ($<$6\%), which further evolves into three (seven) nodal-ring for EBTS of 8\% (6\%$\leq$EBTS$\leq$8\%). Upon the application of EBTS along a-c directions, we found two sets of three mutually orthogonal, intersecting nodal loops (topological gimbals). Apart from this, under the application of equi-biaxial compressive strain (EBCS) along the a-b (a-c) directions, it exhibits only one nodal ring up to 8\% (7\%). Beyond this, the nodal line completely vanishes and does not reappear at higher values of EBCS. Under equi-triaxial tensile strain (ETTS), Cu$_2$SnS$_3$ exhibits only one nodal-ring $<$6\%, which subsequently transforms into five nodal-ring for 6\%$\leq$ETTS$\leq$8\%. However, under the application of equi-triaxial compressive strain (ETCS), as in EBCS, only one nodal line exists up to 6\% ETCS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07618 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

131 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

[1]

F. D. M. Haldane, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 040502 (2017)

2017
[2]

Upon further application of ETCS above 6%, the nodal line completely vanishes and does not reappear at higher values of strain

However, the number of nodal lines remains one, and it lies in the kx–kz plane within 8 the range of 0% ≤ ETCS≤ 6%, as evident from the ﬁgure. Upon further application of ETCS above 6%, the nodal line completely vanishes and does not reappear at higher values of strain. For ETCS above 6%, the evolution from the nodal line phase to the gapped phase indicat...
[3]

How- ever, upon further application of ETTS, we found that for 6%≤ ETTS≤ 8%, both the size and the number of nodal lines increase, rising from one to ﬁve (see Fig

While the nodal line expands with tensile strain, the number of nodal lines remains ﬁxed and lies in the kx-kz (ky=0) plane. How- ever, upon further application of ETTS, we found that for 6%≤ ETTS≤ 8%, both the size and the number of nodal lines increase, rising from one to ﬁve (see Fig. 11 in the SM [ 99]). The evolution from one nodal line to ﬁve new no...
[4]

C.-K. Chiu, J. C. Y. Teo, A. P. Schnyder, and S. Ryu, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 035005 (2016)

2016
[5]

B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, Science 314, 1757 (2006)

2006
[6]

Z. Wang, Y. Sun, X.-Q. Chen, C. Fran- chini, G. Xu, H. Weng, X. Dai, and Z. Fang, Phys. Rev. B 85, 195320 (2012)

2012
[7]

Z. Wang, H. Weng, Q. Wu, X. Dai, and Z. Fang, Phys. Rev. B 88, 125427 (2013)

2013
[8]

H. Weng, C. Fang, Z. Fang, B. A. Bernevig, and X. Dai, Phys. Rev. X 5, 011029 (2015)

2015

Show all 131 references

[9]

B. Q. Lv, H. M. Weng, B. B. Fu, X. P. Wang, H. Miao, J. Ma, P. Richard, X. C. Huang, L. X. Zhao, G. F. Chen, Z. Fang, X. Dai, T. Qian, and H. Ding, Phys. Rev. X 5, 031013 (2015)

2015
[10]

N. P. Armitage, E. J. Mele, and A. Vishwanath, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015001 (2018)

2018
[11]

C. Fang, H. Weng, X. Dai, and Z. Fang, Chinese Phys. B 25, 117106 (2016)

2016
[12]

Chan, C.-K

Y.-H. Chan, C.-K. Chiu, M. Y. Chou, and A. P. Schny- der, Phys. Rev. B 93, 205132 (2016)

2016
[13]

C. Fang, Y. Chen, H.-Y. Kee, and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. B 92, 081201 (2015)

2015
[14]

A. A. Burkov, M. D. Hook, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. B 84, 235126 (2011)

2011
[15]

R. Yu, Q. Wu, Z. Fang, and H. Weng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 036401 (2017)

2017
[16]

Q. Yan, R. Liu, Z. Yan, B. Liu, H. Chen, Z. Wang, and L. Lu, Nature Physics 14, 461 (2018)

2018
[17]

Bzduˇ sek, Q

T. Bzduˇ sek, Q. Wu, A. R¨ uegg, M. Sigrist, and A. A. Soluyanov, Nature 538, 75 (2016)

2016
[18]

Chen, H.-Z

W. Chen, H.-Z. Lu, and J.-M. Hou, Phys. Rev. B 96, 041102 (2017)

2017
[19]

Z. Yan, R. Bi, H. Shen, L. Lu, S.-C. Zhang, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 96, 041103 (2017)

2017
[20]

R. Bi, Z. Yan, L. Lu, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 96, 201305 (2017)

2017
[21]

Phillips and V

M. Phillips and V. Aji, Phys. Rev. B 90, 115111 (2014)

2014
[22]

S.-Y. Xu, N. Alidoust, G. Chang, H. Lu, B. Singh, I. Belopolski, D. S. Sanchez, X. Zhang, G. Bian, H. Zheng, M.-A. Husanu, Y. Bian, S.-M. Huang, C.- H. Hsu, T.-R. Chang, H.-T. Jeng, A. Bansil, T. Neu- pert, V. N. Strocov, H. Lin, S. Jia, and M. Z. Hasan, Sci. Adv. 3, e1603266 (2017)

2017
[23]

N. B. Kopnin, T. T. Heikkil¨ a, and G. E. Volovik, Phys. Rev. B 83, 220503 (2011)

2011
[24]

Y. Sun, Y. Zhang, C.-X. Liu, C. Felser, and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. B 95, 235104 (2017)

2017
[25]

G. E. Volovik, Phys. Scr. 2015, 014014 (2015)

2015
[26]

Huh, E.-G

Y. Huh, E.-G. Moon, and Y. B. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 93, 035138 (2016)

2016
[27]

Liu and L

J. Liu and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. B 95, 075426 (2017)

2017
[28]

Rhim and Y

J.-W. Rhim and Y. B. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 92, 045126 (2015)

2015
[29]

S. T. Ramamurthy and T. L. Hughes, Phys. Rev. B 95, 075138 (2017)

2017
[30]

Yan, P.-W

Z. Yan, P.-W. Huang, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 93, 085138 (2016)

2016
[31]

Mullen, B

K. Mullen, B. Uchoa, and D. T. Glatzhofer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 026403 (2015)

2015
[32]

J. P. Carbotte, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 29, 045301 (2016)

2016
[33]

Z. Li, Z. He, L. Wang, W. Meng, X. Dai, G. Liu, Y. Liu, and X. Zhang, Iscience 27 (2024)

2024
[34]

Hosoi, I

M. Hosoi, I. Tateishi, H. Matsuura, and M. Ogata, Phys. Rev. B 105, 085406 (2022)

2022
[35]

Y. Zou, N. Wu, T. Song, Z. Liu, and X. Cui, ACS omega 8, 27231 (2023). 9

2023
[36]

S.-Y. Yang, H. Yang, E. Derunova, S. S. Parkin, B. Yan, and M. N. Ali, Advances in Physics: X 3, 1414631 (2018)

2018
[37]

Zhang, J

Y. Zhang, J. Tang, X. Dai, S. Zhang, Z. Cao, and Y. Xi- ang, Phys. Rev. B 106, 184101 (2022)

2022
[38]

L. S. Xie, L. M. Schoop, E. M. Seibel, Q. D. Gibson, W. Xie, and R. J. Cava, APL Materials 3, 083602 (2015)

2015
[39]

H. Weng, Y. Liang, Q. Xu, R. Yu, Z. Fang, X. Dai, and Y. Kawazoe, Phys. Rev. B 92, 045108 (2015)

2015
[40]

J.-T. Wang, H. Weng, S. Nie, Z. Fang, Y. Kawazoe, and C. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 195501 (2016)

2016
[41]

Y. Chen, Y. Xie, S. A. Yang, H. Pan, F. Zhang, M. L. Cohen, and S. Zhang, Nano letters 15, 6974 (2015)

2015
[42]

J. Zhao, R. Yu, H. Weng, and Z. Fang, Phys. Rev. B 94, 195104 (2016)

2016
[43]

Q. Xu, R. Yu, Z. Fang, X. Dai, and H. Weng, Phys. Rev. B 95, 045136 (2017)

2017
[44]

Y. Quan, Z. P. Yin, and W. E. Pickett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 176402 (2017)

2017
[45]

J. Jeon, J. Jang, H. Kim, T. Park, D. Kim, S. Moon, J. S. Kim, J. H. Shim, H. Min, and E. Choi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 236903 (2023)

2023
[46]

Yamakage, Y

A. Yamakage, Y. Yamakawa, Y. Tanaka, and Y. Okamoto, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 85, 013708 (2016)

2016
[47]

Huang, K.-H

H. Huang, K.-H. Jin, and F. Liu, Phys. Rev. B 96, 115106 (2017)

2017
[48]

Pandey and S

V. Pandey and S. K. Pandey, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 35, 455501 (2023)

2023
[49]

L. Zhou, Y. Qian, C. Yue, Y. Jiang, Z. Fang, W. Zhang, C. Fang, and H. Weng, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033067 (2022)

2022
[50]

Huang, S.-Y

S.-M. Huang, S.-Y. Xu, I. Belopolski, et al. , Nat. Commun. 6, 7373 (2015)

2015
[51]

Y. Kim, B. J. Wieder, C. L. Kane, and A. M. Rappe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 036806 (2015)

2015
[52]

R. Yu, H. Weng, Z. Fang, X. Dai, and X. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 036807 (2015)

2015
[53]

L. M. Schoop, M. N. Ali, C. Straßer, A. Topp, A. Varykhalov, D. Marchenko, V. Duppel, S. S. Parkin, B. V. Lotsch, and C. R. Ast, Nat Commun 7, 11696 (2016)

2016
[54]

Neupane, I

M. Neupane, I. Belopolski, M. M. Hosen, D. S. Sanchez, R. Sankar, M. Szlawska, S.-Y. Xu, K. Dimitri, N. Dhakal, P. Maldonado, P. M. Oppeneer, D. Kac- zorowski, F. Chou, M. Z. Hasan, and T. Durakiewicz, Phys. Rev. B 93, 201104 (2016)

2016
[55]

Huang, J

H. Huang, J. Liu, D. Vanderbilt, and W. Duan, Phys. Rev. B 93, 201114 (2016)

2016
[56]

Vanderbilt, Berry phases in electronic structure the- ory: electric polarization, orbital magnetization and topological insulators (Cambridge University Press, 2018)

D. Vanderbilt, Berry phases in electronic structure the- ory: electric polarization, orbital magnetization and topological insulators (Cambridge University Press, 2018)

2018
[57]

H. Yuan, M. S. Bahramy, K. Morimoto, S. Wu, K. No- mura, B.-J. Yang, H. Shimotani, R. Suzuki, M. Toh, C. Kloc, et al. , Nature Physics 9, 563 (2013)

2013
[58]

Nakamura and T

H. Nakamura and T. Kimura, Phys. Rev. B 80, 121308 (2009)

2009
[59]

Tanttu, B

T. Tanttu, B. Hensen, K. W. Chan, C. H. Yang, W. W. Huang, M. Fogarty, F. Hudson, K. Itoh, D. Culcer, A. Laucht, A. Morello, and A. Dzurak, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021028 (2019)

2019
[60]

Zollner, S

K. Zollner, S. a. M. Jo˜ ao, B. K. Nikoli´ c, and J. Fabian, Phys. Rev. B 108, 235166 (2023)

2023
[61]

Behrends, J.-W

J. Behrends, J.-W. Rhim, S. Liu, A. G. Grushin, and J. H. Bardarson, Phys. Rev. B 96, 245101 (2017)

2017
[62]

Pandey and S

P. Pandey and S. K. Pandey, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24359 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[63]

Zhang, F

L. Zhang, F. Zhai, K.-H. Jin, B. Cui, B. Huang, Z. Wang, J. Lu, and F. Liu, Nano Letters 17, 4359 (2017)

2017
[64]

Huang, K.-H

B. Huang, K.-H. Jin, B. Cui, F. Zhai, J. Mei, and F. Liu, Nat Commun 8, 1 (2017)

2017
[65]

Q. Bian, S. Li, A. Luo, Z. Zhang, J. Hu, Y. Zhu, Z. Shao, H. Sun, Z. Cheng, Z. Mao, et al. , npj Quantum Mater. 7, 55 (2022)

2022
[66]

Zhang, L

X. Zhang, L. Jin, X. Dai, and G. Liu, Appl. Phys. Lett. 112, 122403 (2018)

2018
[67]

L. An, X. Zhu, W. Gao, M. Wu, W. Ning, and M. Tian, Phys. Rev. B 99, 045143 (2019)

2019
[68]

J. Mi, S. Xu, S. Li, C. Jiang, Z. Li, Q. Tao, and Z.-A. Xu, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.21115 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[69]

X. Dai, Z. Li, Y. Xu, Y. Deng, Y. Zhang, P. Yan, J. Wang, S. Wang, K. He, Y. Li, Y. Xu, and L. He, Phys. Rev. B 109, 165155 (2024)

2024
[70]

N. T. Hung, J. M. Adhidewata, A. R. T. Nugraha, and R. Saito, Phys. Rev. B 105, 115142 (2022)

2022
[71]

Minami, S

S. Minami, S. Hogaki, and T. Shimada, Phys. Rev. Mater. 8, 075403 (2024)

2024
[72]

M. N. G. Laksono, M. A. Majidi, and A. R. T. Nugraha, Phys. Scr. 100, 015970 (2024)

2024
[73]

Pandey and S

P. Pandey and S. K. Pandey, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12722 (2025)

2025
[74]

S. Chen, S. Huang, W. Duan, W. Shi, and C. Zhang, J. Appl. Phys. 128 (2020)

2020
[75]

T. Yang, Z. Cheng, X. Wang, and X.-L. Wang, Journal of Advanced Research 28, 43 (2021)

2021
[76]

Blaha, K

P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, F. Tran, R. Laskowski, G. K. Madsen, and L. D. Marks, J. Chem. Phys. 152, 074101 (2020)

2020
[77]

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

1996
[78]

Pandey and S

V. Pandey and S. K. Pandey, Comput. Phys. Comm. 283, 108570 (2023)

2023
[79]

J. A. Nelder and R. Mead, The Computer Journal 7, 308 (1965)

1965
[80]

Pandey and S

P. Pandey and S. K. Pandey, Comput. Phys. Comm. 303, 109281 (2024)

2024
[81]

Kaltsoyannis, Encyclopedia of Inorganic Chemistry (2006)

N. Kaltsoyannis, Encyclopedia of Inorganic Chemistry (2006)

2006
[82]

C. W. Nicholson, M. Rumo, A. Pulkkinen, G. Kremer, B. Salzmann, M.-L. Mottas, B. Hildebrand, T. Jaouen, T. K. Kim, S. Mukherjee, et al. , Commun Mater 2, 25 (2021)

2021
[83]

C. Lin, A. Consiglio, O. K. Forslund, J. K¨ uspert, M. M. Denner, H. Lei, A. Louat, M. D. Watson, T. K. Kim, C. Cacho, et al. , Nat Commun 15, 1 (2024)

2024
[84]

C. W. Nicholson, F. Petocchi, B. Salzmann, C. Witteveen, M. Rumo, G. Kremer, O. Ivashko, F. O. von Rohr, P. Werner, and C. Monney, Phys. Rev. B 109, 035167 (2024)

2024
[85]

Tuniz, A

M. Tuniz, A. Consiglio, G. Pokharel, F. Parmigiani, T. Neupert, R. Thomale, S. K. Chaluvadi, P. Or- giani, G. Sangiovanni, S. D. Wilson, I. Vobornik, F. Salvador, F. Cilento, D. Di Sante, and F. Mazzola, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 066501 (2025) . 10

2025
[86]

Zhang, Z

R.-W. Zhang, Z. Zhang, C.-C. Liu, and Y. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 016402 (2020)

2020
[87]

X. Wang, W. Wan, Y. Ge, and Y. Liu, New J. Phys. 23, 093046 (2021)

2021
[88]

Huang, W

H. Huang, W. Jiang, K.-H. Jin, and F. Liu, Phys. Rev. B 98, 045131 (2018)

2018
[89]

Islam, B

R. Islam, B. Ghosh, G. Cuono, A. Lau, W. Brzezicki, A. Bansil, A. Agarwal, B. Singh, T. Dietl, and C. Au- tieri, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023114 (2022)

2022
[90]

Teshome and A

T. Teshome and A. Datta, ACS omega 4, 8701 (2019)

2019
[91]

Mondal, C

C. Mondal, C. Barman, S. Kumar, A. Alam, and B. Pathak, Scientiﬁc reports 9, 527 (2019)

2019
[92]

Rendy and E

B. Rendy and E. H. Hasdeo, Journal of Applied Physics 129, 014306 (2021)

2021
[93]

A. Nie, Y. Bu, P. Li, Y. Zhang, T. Jin, J. Liu, Z. Su, Y. Wang, J. He, Z. Liu, et al. , Nature communications 10, 5533 (2019)

2019
[94]

L. Wang, Z. Zeng, W. Gao, T. Maxson, D. Rac- iti, M. Giroux, X. Pan, C. Wang, and J. Greeley, Science 363, 870 (2019)

2019
[95]

Tian, Y.-Q

L. Tian, Y.-Q. Cheng, Z.-W. Shan, J. Li, C.-C. Wang, X.-D. Han, J. Sun, and E. Ma, Nature communications 3, 609 (2012)

2012
[96]

S. Hao, L. Cui, D. Jiang, X. Han, Y. Ren, J. Jiang, Y. Liu, Z. Liu, S. Mao, Y. Wang, Y. Li, X. Ren, X. Ding, S. Wang, C. Yu, X. Shi, M. Du, F. Yang, Y. Zheng, Z. Zhang, X. Li, D. E. Brown, and J. Li, Science 339, 1191 (2013)

2013
[97]

Liang, D

Q. Liang, D. Wang, J. Zhang, Y. Ji, X. Ding, Y. Wang, X. Ren, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. Mater. 1, 033608 (2017)

2017
[98]

Y. M. Wang, R. T. Ott, A. V. Hamza, M. F. Besser, J. Almer, and M. J. Kramer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 215502 (2010)

2010
[99]

S. S. Hong, M. Gu, M. Verma, V. Harbola, B. Y. Wang, D. Lu, A. Vailionis, Y. Hikita, R. Pentcheva, J. M. Rondinelli, and H. Y. Hwang, Science 368, 71 (2020)

2020
[100]

Kim and J

J.-Y. Kim and J. R. Greer, Acta Materialia 57, 5245 (2009)

2009
[101]

See supplementary material at this link
[102]

M. J. Gilbert, Commun Phys 4, 70 (2021)

2021
[103]

Y. Liu, X. Chen, and Y. Xu, Advanced Functional Materials 30, 1904784 (2020)

2020
[104]

Y. Tian, Y. Zhu, R. Li, Z. Mao, and J. H. Ross, Phys. Rev. B 104, L041105 (2021)

2021
[105]

A. R. Medeiros-Silva, M. Malard, R. G. Pereira, and T. Paiva, Phys. Rev. B 111, 195152 (2025)

2025
[106]

Banerjee, D

A. Banerjee, D. Chowdhury, and A. Narayan, Phys. Rev. B 108, 235148 (2023)

2023
[107]

Barati and S

S. Barati and S. H. Abedinpour, Phys. Rev. B 96, 155150 (2017)

2017
[108]

H. N. Krishnamoorthy, A. M. Dubrovkin, G. Adamo, and C. Soci, Chem. Rev. 123, 4416 (2023)

2023
[109]

Zhang, M

X. Zhang, M. Xiao, Y. Cheng, M.-H. Lu, and J. Chris- tensen, Communications Physics 1, 97 (2018)

2018
[110]

K.-H. Jin, W. Jiang, G. Sethi, and F. Liu, Nanoscale 15, 12787 (2023)

2023
[111]

W. Zhou, A. N. Rudenko, and S. Yuan, Advanced Electronic Materials 6, 1900860 (2020)

2020
[112]

A. O. Fumega, V. Pardo, and A. Cortijo, Scientiﬁc Re- ports 11, 10574 (2021)

2021
[113]

Schilberth, M.-C

F. Schilberth, M.-C. Jiang, F. Le Mardel´ e, L. Papp, I. Mohelsky, M. Kassem, Y. Tabata, T. Waki, H. Naka- mura, G.-Y. Guo, et al. , npj Quantum Materials 10, 67 (2025)

2025
[114]

Q. Meng, F. Chen, Y. Xu, S. Cheng, W. Yang, D. Yao, and Z. Yi, Diamond and Related Materials 138, 110216 (2023)

2023
[115]

K. Y. Thai, I. Park, B. J. Kim, A. T. Hoang, Y. Na, C. U. Park, Y. Chae, and J.-H. Ahn, ACS nano 15, 12836 (2021)

2021
[116]

J. Ma, C. Ouyang, Y. Yang, H. Li, L. Niu, X. Qian, Y. Liu, B. Yang, Q. Xu, Y. Li, et al. , Appl. Phys. Lett. 122 (2023)

2023
[117]

Sofka, New generation of gimbals systems for aerospace applications (State University of New York at Binghamton, 2007)

J. Sofka, New generation of gimbals systems for aerospace applications (State University of New York at Binghamton, 2007)

2007
[118]

Barbour, J

N. Barbour, J. Elwell, and R. Setterlund, in Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference (1992) p. 4414

1992
[119]

M. S. Grewal, L. R. Weill, and A. P. Andrews, Global positioning systems, inertial navigation, and integratio n (John Wiley & Sons, 2007)

2007
[120]

Kayton, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Elec- tronic Systems 24, 474 (2002)

M. Kayton, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Elec- tronic Systems 24, 474 (2002)

2002
[121]

Gaˇ sparovi´ c and L

M. Gaˇ sparovi´ c and L. Jurjevi´ c, Sensors17, 401 (2017)

2017
[122]

Rajesh and P

R. Rajesh and P. Kavitha, in 2015 International Confer- ence on Computer, Communication and Control (IC4) (IEEE, 2015) pp. 1–6

2015
[123]

Krause, M

M. Krause, M. Hulman, H. Kuzmany, O. Dubay, G. Kresse, K. Vietze, G. Seifert, C. Wang, and H. Shi- nohara, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 137403 (2004)

2004
[124]

Delgado, W

A. Delgado, W. P. Schleich, and G. S¨ ussmann, New J. Phys. 4, 37 (2002)

2002
[125]

T. B. Bahder and P. A. Lopata, Phys. Rev. A 74, 051801 (2006)

2006
[126]

L. D. Didomenico, H. Lee, P. Kok, and J. P. Dowling, in Quantum Sensing and Nanophotonic Devices , Vol. 5359 (SPIE, 2004) pp. 169–176

2004
[127]

Y. Qi, M. A. Sadi, D. Hu, M. Zheng, Z. Wu, Y. Jiang, and Y. P. Chen, Advanced Materials 35, 2205714 (2023)

2023
[128]

Qin, P.-F

M.-S. Qin, P.-F. Zhu, X.-G. Ye, W.-Z. Xu, Z.-H. Song, J. Liang, K. Liu, and Z.-M. Liao, Chinese Physics Let- ters 38, 017301 (2021)

2021
[129]

Cenker, D

J. Cenker, D. Ovchinnikov, H. Yang, D. G. Chica, C. Zhu, J. Cai, G. Diederich, Z. Liu, X. Zhu, X. Roy, et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.03759 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[130]

X. Ma, Y. Lei, H. Bao, W. Wu, F. Ma, and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. Mater. 9, 034412 (2025)

2025
[131]

Bandyopadhyay, J

S. Bandyopadhyay, J. Atulasimha, and A. Barman, Appl. Phys. Rev. 8, 041323 (2021)

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

F. D. M. Haldane, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 040502 (2017)

2017

[2] [2]

Upon further application of ETCS above 6%, the nodal line completely vanishes and does not reappear at higher values of strain

However, the number of nodal lines remains one, and it lies in the kx–kz plane within 8 the range of 0% ≤ ETCS≤ 6%, as evident from the ﬁgure. Upon further application of ETCS above 6%, the nodal line completely vanishes and does not reappear at higher values of strain. For ETCS above 6%, the evolution from the nodal line phase to the gapped phase indicat...

[3] [3]

How- ever, upon further application of ETTS, we found that for 6%≤ ETTS≤ 8%, both the size and the number of nodal lines increase, rising from one to ﬁve (see Fig

While the nodal line expands with tensile strain, the number of nodal lines remains ﬁxed and lies in the kx-kz (ky=0) plane. How- ever, upon further application of ETTS, we found that for 6%≤ ETTS≤ 8%, both the size and the number of nodal lines increase, rising from one to ﬁve (see Fig. 11 in the SM [ 99]). The evolution from one nodal line to ﬁve new no...

[4] [4]

C.-K. Chiu, J. C. Y. Teo, A. P. Schnyder, and S. Ryu, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 035005 (2016)

2016

[5] [5]

B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, Science 314, 1757 (2006)

2006

[6] [6]

Z. Wang, Y. Sun, X.-Q. Chen, C. Fran- chini, G. Xu, H. Weng, X. Dai, and Z. Fang, Phys. Rev. B 85, 195320 (2012)

2012

[7] [7]

Z. Wang, H. Weng, Q. Wu, X. Dai, and Z. Fang, Phys. Rev. B 88, 125427 (2013)

2013

[8] [8]

H. Weng, C. Fang, Z. Fang, B. A. Bernevig, and X. Dai, Phys. Rev. X 5, 011029 (2015)

2015