Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Optical evidence of the band reconstruction during the charge-density wave transition in annealed Kagome magnet FeGe

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper attributes the optical spectral-weight transfer in the kagome magnet FeGe to c-axis displacement of Ge1 atoms, which reshapes the Fe 3d bands and, through Hund's rule coupling, enhances the iron magnetic moment.

desk verdict Clean optical data show spectral-weight transfer in both annealing regimes, but the single-cell DFT and imported structural premises make the Ge1-distortion attribution plausible, not confirmed. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17020 v1 pith:MOGKJHVS submitted 2024-12-22 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.supr-con

A. Zhang , X. -L. Wu , R. Yang , A. -F. Wang , Y. -M. Dai , Z. -X. Shi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-elcond-mat.supr-con
keywords FeGekagomelatticecharge-densitywaveopticalconductivityspectralweighttransferbandreconstructionHund'scouplingGe1distortion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the dramatic redistribution of optical spectral weight in the kagome magnet FeGe—both the abrupt change at the charge-density-wave transition and the gradual change in an annealed sample without such a transition—has a single microscopic cause: displacement of the Ge1 germanium atoms along the c-axis. Using reflectivity measurements converted to optical conductivity, the authors show that low-energy excitations below 0.4 eV lose spectral weight that reappears between 0.8 and 1.5 eV, and that the high-energy weight tracks the iron magnetic moment. First-principles calculations with a displaced Ge1 atom reproduce the transfer and show that the distortion moves the iron $3d$ orbital energies closer together, so that Hund's rule coupling tips Fe from a low-spin toward a high-spin state. If correct, the result identifies a concrete lattice motion—not the charge order by itself—as the driver of both the electronic reconstruction and the magnetic enhancement, and it suggests that annealing can tune magnetism in kagome metals.

What carries the argument

The paper's load-bearing observable is the integrated spectral weight $SW(\omega_c,T) = (Z_0/\pi^2)\int_0^{\omega_c} \sigma_1(\omega')d\omega'$, computed from Kramers-Kronig-transformed reflectivity and decomposed into Drude and Lorentz components; the central identity is that this weight is conserved and moves from below about 0.4 eV into the 0.8–1.5 eV window. The explanatory machinery on the theory side is a density-functional band calculation in which the Ge1 atoms are displaced along the c-axis by 0.5 and 1 Å within a single unit cell; this displacement lowers the Fe $d_{yz}$ orbital, raises the $d_{xy}/d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbitals, pushes the van Hove singularity at the $M$ point toward the Fermi level, and—because the crystal-field splitting narrows below the Hund's coupling energy $J_H\approx 0.8$ eV—favors a high-spin configuration. The same Ge1 displacement parameter thus accounts for both the optical transfer and the enhanced Fe moment.

What would settle it

Determining the Ge1 distortion fraction in the 560°C-annealed sample by single-crystal diffraction and measuring the optical spectral-weight transfer in a series of samples annealed to different temperatures would test the structural premise: if the transfer does not scale with the measured distortion fraction, the attribution is wrong. A supercell density-functional calculation with only one quarter of Ge1 atoms displaced—explicitly beyond the paper's resources—would test the modeling premise: it should reproduce the same qualitative transfer, and if it does not, the single-unit-cell approximation is the weak point.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the spectral-weight transfer seen in both FeGe samples—abrupt below the 110 K CDW transition in the 320°C-annealed crystal, gradual from 300 to 5 K in the 560°C-annealed crystal—has a single microscopic origin: the displacement of Ge1 atoms along the c-axis. In the 320°C sample, the CDW displaces one quarter of the Ge1 atoms; in the 560°C sample, annealing already leaves about 8% of them distorted. Density-functional band structures computed for Ge1 displacements of 0.5 and 1 Å reproduce the optical changes: flat bands move up, the Fe $d_{yz}$ orbital at $\Gamma$ drops and gains occupancy, the $d_{xy}/d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbitals at $K$ and $H$ rise, the van Hove singularity at $M$ approaches the Fermi level, and the density of states at the Fermi level falls, suppressing the Drude response. Because the distortion narrows the crystal-field splitting between the Fe $3d$ orbital groups to below the Hund's coupling energy ($J_H \approx 0.8$ eV), Fe shifts from a low-spin Fe$^{2+}$ toward a high-spin state, which the authors identify with the enhanced magnetic moment and the increased Néel temperature in the 560°C sample.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the structural premise, taken from earlier work, that annealing at 560°C distorts 8% of Ge1 atoms and that the CDW displaces one quarter of Ge1 atoms along the c-axis, together with the modeling assumption that a single-unit-cell density-functional calculation with a uniform 0.5 to 1 Å Ge1 displacement captures the band reconstruction of the real partially distorted crystal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the attribution is right, the abrupt suppression of low-frequency spectral weight below 110 K in the 320°C sample and the gradual suppression from 300 K in the 560°C sample are the same band reconstruction, making the CDW transition's optical signature a secondary consequence of the Ge1 displacement.
  • The high-frequency spectral weight in the 0.8–1.5 eV window becomes a bulk optical proxy for the Fe magnetic moment, tracking the neutron-scattering temperature dependence including the downturn below the ~40 K spin canting.
  • Annealing at 560°C pre-distorts enough Ge1 sites to suppress the CDW and raise the Néel temperature, so the lattice distortion and magnetic properties are tunable by processing without requiring the CDW state.
  • The density-functional results predict that further Ge1 displacement monotonically increases the Fe moment, linking the degree of lattice distortion quantitatively to magnetism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not claimed by the paper: a supercell calculation with only one quarter of the Ge1 atoms displaced—the calculation the paper says exceeded its resources—would provide the decisive check of whether the single-unit-cell uniform displacement faithfully represents the partial distortion; if the spectral-weight transfer differs qualitatively, the central attribution would need revision.
  • Not claimed by the paper: uniaxial stress or strain along the c-axis of a pristine FeGe crystal should produce the same spectral-weight transfer and magnetic-moment enhancement without any CDW transition, because it directly drives the Ge1 displacement that the paper identifies as the cause.
  • Not claimed by the paper: the high-energy spectral weight tracking the Fe moment suggests that optical reflectivity in this energy range could serve as a fast bulk probe of magnetism in kagome metals where neutron scattering is impractical.
  • Not claimed by the paper: the proposed mechanism—p–d hybridization controlling the crystal-field splitting relative to Hund's coupling—may generalize to other transition-metal germanides and pnictides with similar anion-site distortions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports optical reflectivity measurements on two FeGe single crystals annealed at 320 °C (S1, with a CDW transition at 110 K) and 560 °C (S2, without CDW), together with DFT band-structure and optical-conductivity calculations. The authors observe that upon cooling, S1 abruptly transfers spectral weight from below 0.4 eV to the 0.8–1.5 eV range across the CDW transition, while S2 shows a similar but progressive transfer from 300 K to 5 K. They attribute the transfer in both samples to a band reconstruction caused by the c-axis distortion of Ge1 atoms, which they model in DFT by displacing all Ge1 atoms in one unit cell by 0.5 and 1 Å. The proposed mechanism is that Ge1 distortion weakens Ge1-p/Fe-d hybridization, changes Fe 3d orbital energies, and through Hund's coupling enhances the Fe magnetic moment.

Significance. If the attribution is correct, the paper provides a relatively direct optical signature of band reconstruction driven by a specific local lattice distortion, and it unifies the CDW sample and the annealed non-CDW sample under one mechanism. The raw optical spectra appear to show the claimed low-energy suppression and high-energy enhancement clearly, and the two-sample comparison is an experimentally sensible design. The DFT calculation is genuinely first-principles and is not fitted to the optical data, which reduces circularity concerns. The paper also makes a testable claim about the role of Ge1 displacement magnitude, which is a useful step toward understanding the charge-lattice-spin coupling in FeGe. However, the quantitative support for the central mechanism is weakened by the single-unit-cell uniform-displacement modeling and by the absence of error estimates in the Drude-Lorentz analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II C, Fig. 3c-e, and Section III] The central attribution rests on the assumption that a uniform displacement of all Ge1 atoms by 0.5–1 Å in a single unit cell reproduces the band reconstruction caused by a CDW that displaces only 1/4 of the Ge1 atoms (S1) or by 8% distorted Ge1 atoms (S2). The paper explicitly states that a realistic supercell calculation 'surpasses our computational resources' and does not report the actual displacement magnitude of the CDW-distorted Ge1 atoms. The word 'confirmed' in Section III is therefore too strong: the DFT result is at best qualitative evidence for the direction of the spectral-weight shift, not a quantitative confirmation of its magnitude. I ask the authors to either provide a supercell calculation with the actual partially displaced structure, or to demonstrate (e.g., by scaling or by comparing with published supercell results) that the single-unit-cell uniform displacement is representative. Without such a test, the central claim that Ge1 distortion, rather than other CDW or correlation effects, drives the measured transfer remains an unsupported quantitative step.
  2. [Section II B, Figs. 2c and 2d] The quantitative spectral-weight analysis relies on a Drude-Lorentz decomposition into D1, D2, and L1–L6 oscillators, but the paper provides no error bars, no uniqueness test, and no discussion of how the oscillator set was chosen. The claim that 'the low-energy SW, encompassing both intraband responses (D1 and D2) and interband transitions (L1 to L3), undergoes suppression' while 'L4+L5' increases is a quantitative statement, and its robustness to alternative fits should be demonstrated. In particular, the separation between Drude and Lorentz components at low energy is notoriously non-unique, and the integrated spectral-weight ratios in Figs. 1c-f are more model-independent. I recommend adding an uncertainty analysis (e.g., fitting with different numbers of oscillators or imposing sum-rule constraints) and, if possible, reporting the temperature-dependent spectral weights directly from the integral of the measured σ1(ω) rather than only from the fitted components.
  3. [Section II C, Fig. 3e] The DFT optical conductivity σ1(ω) shown in Fig. 3e is only compared qualitatively with the measured spectra; the computational parameters (exchange-correlation functional, U value, spin ordering, k-point sampling, and broadening) are not given in the main text or in the available supplemental description. Since the paper claims that 'the consistency between observations and theoretical calculations confirmed' the mechanism, the reader needs enough information to assess whether the calculated shift is of the correct magnitude and energy scale. At minimum, the authors should provide the computational details and, ideally, an overlay of the calculated and measured σ1(ω) for the pristine and distorted cases so that the claimed agreement can be judged quantitatively.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II A, second paragraph] The phrase 'both materials exhibit distinct mentality' appears to be a typo; presumably 'metallicity' is intended.
  2. [Section II B, first sentence] The text says 'the Drude-Lorentz mode' but the intended word is likely 'model'.
  3. [Reference [28]] The supplemental material is cited as '[28] Supplementary.' without a title or link; please provide a full reference and a description of its contents.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption] The axis label 'c (103 cm-1)' in Figs. 1c and 1d appears to be a typo for the photon-energy axis; also, the caption could clarify that the insets in (c) and (d) show the lattice structure, as they are not mentioned in the caption body.
  5. [Throughout] The phrase 'Hund’s rule coupling' should be 'Hund's coupling' or 'Hund-rule coupling' for consistency, and the notation JH should be defined before first use in Section III.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the optical data and first-principles calculations are independent, and the load-bearing structural premise comes from external prior work rather than from the paper's own fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward comparison: optical conductivity is measured independently, and the first-principles calculations take a stated structural input (Ge1 displacement along the c-axis) and compute band structures, density of states, and optical conductivity. The displacement magnitudes (0.5 and 1 Å) are illustrative and not fitted to the optical spectra; the paper explicitly compares qualitative trends rather than quantitative fits. The claim that Ge1 distortion is the common driver in both samples rests on prior structural studies, including Ref. [27] with overlapping authorship, but that prior work is an external structural characterization (8% distorted Ge1 in the 560 C annealed sample, 1/4 Ge1 displaced in the CDW phase), not derived from the optical data presented here. The single-unit-cell approximation is disclosed as a computational limitation and is justified by citing earlier supercell and ARPES work, not by asserting the conclusion. No derived quantity in the paper is equivalent to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The main scientific risk is the external-modeling validity of using a uniform, large Ge1 displacement in one unit cell to represent a sparse partial distortion, but that is a correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything here is either standard methodology or imported from prior work; no new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The main load-bearing imports are the structural distortion fractions and the single-unit-cell modeling choice.

free parameters (3)
  • Drude-Lorentz oscillator parameters (D1, D2, L1-L6) = not tabulated in main text
    Per-temperature fits to sigma_1(omega); the spectral weights and their transfer are derived from these fitted plasma frequencies, so the central SW-transfer quantities are fit outputs, not direct measurements.
  • Ge1 displacement magnitudes in DFT = 0.5 Å and 1 Å
    Chosen by hand in Fig. 3c-e; not constrained by the measured structure of the actual samples, so the calculated optical conductivity trends depend on arbitrary displacement values.
  • Spectral weight integration cutoffs = omega_c = 3000 and 8000 cm^-1; low < 0.4 eV, high 0.8 to 1.5 eV
    The central SW-transfer statement is defined relative to hand-picked energy windows; conclusions could shift with different cutoffs.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Kramers-Kronig transform of reflectivity gives a valid sigma_1(omega)
    Used throughout Section II A; assumes causality and appropriate extrapolations, standard for optical spectroscopy.
  • domain assumption Drude-Lorentz model with two Drude and six Lorentz terms is a valid decomposition of the optical conductivity
    The fit is the basis for the component spectral weights in Fig. 2; no uniqueness analysis or physical assignment of all oscillators is provided.
  • domain assumption Annealing at 560 C leaves 8% of Ge1 atoms distorted, and the CDW displaces 1/4 of Ge1 atoms
    Imported from refs 27 and 31; not measured on the current crystals.
  • ad hoc to paper A single-unit-cell uniform Ge1 displacement reproduces the band reconstruction of the partial-distortion supercell
    Stated in Section II C as a qualitative approximation because the realistic 2x2x2 supercell exceeds available resources.
  • domain assumption Local or semilocal DFT exchange-correlation is accurate enough for the relevant Fe 3d band positions and optical trends
    The calculations are presented without specifying functional or Hubbard U in the main text; correlation effects are acknowledged as important via ref 20.
  • domain assumption Hund's coupling JH about 0.8 eV and the low-spin to high-spin Fe2+ crossover picture from refs 34 and 35 apply to FeGe
    Used in Section III to connect orbital energy shifts to magnetic moment enhancement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optical evidence of the band reconstruction during the charge-density wave transition in annealed Kagome magnet FeGe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MOGKJHVS

@misc{pith2026241217020,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optical evidence of the band reconstruction during the charge-density wave transition in annealed Kagome magnet FeGe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MOGKJHVS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17020}
}
read the original abstract

In Kagome magnet FeGe, the coexistence of electron correlation, charge-density wave (CDW), and magnetism renders it ideal to study their interactions. Here, we combined the optical spectroscopy and the first-principles calculations to investigate the band structures of FeGe annealed at different temperatures. Our observations reveal that the sample annealed at 320C experienced dramatic change in optical conductivity following the CDW transition. Specifically, a substantial portion of the spectral weight (SW) in the low-energy region ( < 0.4 eV) was redistributed to the high-energy region (0.8 - 1.5 eV), suggesting a reconstruction of the band structure. The sample annealed at 560 C did not exhibit a CDW transition, but its SW transfer occurred progressively from 300 to 5 K. We noticed that: i) after the CDW transition, the sample annealed at 320 C showed similar tendency of SW transfer to that of the 560 C annealed sample; ii) the high-energy SW of both materials displayed a temperature dependence consistent with the magnetic roperties. Combining the first-principles calculations, we attribute the SW transfer to the band reconstruction triggered by the distortion of Ge1 atoms induced either by annealing at 560C or by the CDW transitions. This lattice distortion affects the energies of Fe 3d orbitals. Under the influence of Hund's rule coupling, the magnetic moment of Fe atoms is enhanced. Our findings elucidate the interactions among charge, lattice, and spin in FeGe, offering pivotal insights to modulate properties of this Kagome magnet.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17020 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Optical spectroscopy of FeGe samples annealed at different temperatures. (a)-(b) Temperature evolution of the real [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Drude(D)-Lorentz(L) fit to the optical conductiv [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The first-principles calculations. (a) is the sketch of dimer formation by Ge1 atoms. (b) displays the orbital-projected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Y. Yu, L. Ma, P. Cai, R. Zhong, C. Ye, J. Shen, G. D. Gu, X. H. Chen, and Y. Zhang, Nature 575, 156 (2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    O. Can, T. Tummuru, R. P. Day, I. Elfimov, A. Damas- celli, and M. Franz, Nature Physics 17, 519 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Mankowsky, A

    R. Mankowsky, A. Subedi, M. F¨ orst, S. O. Mariager, M. Chollet, H. Lemke, J. S. Robinson, J. M. Glownia, M. P. Minitti, A. Frano, et al., Nature 516, 71 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Fernandes, A

    R. Fernandes, A. Chubukov, and J. Schmalian, Nature physics 10, 97 (2014)

    2014

  5. [5]

    Y. Sun, Z. Shi, and T. Tamegai, Superconductor Science and Technology 32, 103001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    G. R. Stewart, Reviews of Modern Physics 83, 1589 (2011)

    2011

  7. [7]

    Subramanian, B

    M. Subramanian, B. Toby, A. Ramirez, W. Marshall, A. Sleight, and G. Kwei, Science 273, 81 (1996)

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    Khalifah, R

    P. Khalifah, R. Osborn, Q. Huang, H. Zandbergen, R. Jin, Y. Liu, D. Mandrus, and R. Cava, Science 297, 2237 (2002)

    work page 2002

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Tokura and N

    Y. Tokura and N. Nagaosa, science 288, 462 (2000)

    2000

  2. [10]

    Liu, Z.-Y

    Y. Liu, Z.-Y. Liu, J.-K. Bao, P.-T. Yang, L.-W. Ji, S.-Q. Wu, Q.-X. Shen, J. Luo, J. Yang, J.-Y. Liu,et al., Nature 632, 1032 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    J.-X. Yin, S. S. Zhang, H. Li, K. Jiang, G. Chang, B. Zhang, B. Lian, C. Xiang, I. Belopolski, H. Zheng, et al., Nature 562, 91 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Jiang, T

    K. Jiang, T. Wu, J.-X. Yin, Z. Wang, M. Z. Hasan, S. D. Wilson, X. Chen, and J. Hu, National Science Review 10, nwac199 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Broholm, R

    C. Broholm, R. J. Cava, S. A. Kivelson, D. G. Nocera, M. R. Norman, and T. Senthil, Science 367 (2020), 10.1126/science.aay0668

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Polarized charge dynamics of a novel charge density wave in kagome fege,

    S. Yi, Z. Liao, Q. Wang, H. Ma, J. Liu, X. Teng, P. Dai, Y. Dai, J. Zhao, Y. Qi, B. Xu, and X. Qiu, “Polarized charge dynamics of a novel charge density wave in kagome fege,” (2024), arXiv:2403.09950 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Y. Wang, H. Wu, G. T. McCandless, J. Y. Chan, and M. N. Ali, Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 635 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    L. Chen, X. Teng, H. Tan, B. L. Winn, G. E. Granroth, F. Ye, D. Yu, R. Mole, B. Gao, B. Yan, et al., Nature Communications 15, 1918 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    X. Teng, L. Chen, F. Ye, E. Rosenberg, Z. Liu, J.-X. Yin, Y.-X. Jiang, J. S. Oh, M. Z. Hasan, K. J. Neubauer, et al., Nature 609, 490 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    S. Wu, M. L. Klemm, J. Shah, E. T. Ritz, C. Duan, X. Teng, B. Gao, F. Ye, M. Matsuda, F. Li, X. Xu, M. Yi, T. Birol, P. Dai, and G. Blumberg, Physical Review X 14, 011043 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Z. Chen, X. Wu, S. Zhou, J. Zhang, R. Yin, Y. Li, M. Li, J. Gong, M. He, Y. Chai, et al., Nature Communications 15, 6262 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Wang, Physical Review Materials 7, 104006 (2023)

    Y. Wang, Physical Review Materials 7, 104006 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Z. Zhao, T. Li, P. Li, X. Wu, J. Yao, Z. Chen, S. Cui, Z. Sun, Y. Yang, Z. Jiang, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08336 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Yin, Y.-X

    J.-X. Yin, Y.-X. Jiang, X. Teng, M. S. Hossain, S. Mar- danya, T.-R. Chang, Z. Ye, G. Xu, M. M. Denner, T. Ne- upert, et al., Physical review letters 129, 166401 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    X. Teng, D. W. Tam, L. Chen, H. Tan, Y. Xie, B. Gao, G. E. Granroth, A. Ivanov, P. Bourges, B. Yan, M. Yi, and P. Dai, Physical Review Letters 133 (2024), 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.046502

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Wenzel, E

    M. Wenzel, E. Uykur, A. Tsirlin, S. Pal, R. M. Roy, C. Yi, C. Shekhar, C. Felser, A. Pronin, and M. Dressel, 7 Physical Review Letters 132, 266505 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Z. Chen, X. Wu, S. Zhou, J. Zhang, R. Yin, Y. Li, M. Li, J. Gong, M. He, Y. Chai, X. Zhou, Y. Wang, A. Wang, Y.-J. Yan, and D.-L. Feng, Nat. Commun. 15, 6262 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    S. Han, L. Li, C. S. Tang, Q. Wang, L. Zhang, C. Diao, M. Zhao, S. Sun, L. Tian, M. B. H. Breese, C. Cai, M. V. Milosevic, Y. Qi, A. T. S. Wee, and X. Yin, (2024), arXiv:2407.01076

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    X. Wu, X. Mi, L. Zhang, C.-W. Wang, N. Maraytta, X. Zhou, M. He, M. Merz, Y. Chai, and A. Wang, Phys- ical Review Letters 132, 256501 (2024)

    2024

  20. [29]

    N. L. Wang, W. Z. Hu, Z. G. Chen, R. H. Yuan, G. Li, G. F. Chen, and T. Xiang, J Phys Condens Matter 24, 294202 (2012)

    2012

  21. [30]

    Yang, C.-C

    R. Yang, C.-C. Le, P. Zhu, Z.-W. Wang, T. Shang, Y.-M. Dai, J.-P. Hu, and M. Dressel, Physical Review B 109, L041113 (2024)

    2024

  22. [31]

    Zhang, J

    B. Zhang, J. Ji, C. Xu, and H. Xiang, Physical Review B 110, 125139 (2024)

    2024

  23. [32]

    Shao, J.-X

    S. Shao, J.-X. Yin, I. Belopolski, J.-Y. You, T. Hou, H. Chen, Y. Jiang, M. S. Hossain, M. Yahyavi, C.-H. Hsu, et al., ACS nano 17, 10164 (2023)

    2023

  24. [33]

    L. Wu, Y. Hu, D. Fan, D. Wang, and X. Wan, Chinese Physics Letters 40, 117103 (2023)

    2023

  25. [34]

    Huang and H

    L. Huang and H. Lu, Physical Review B 102, 125130 (2020)

    2020

  26. [35]

    D. Wu, P. G. Khalifah, D. G. Mandrus, and N. L. Wang, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 20, 325204 (2008)

    2008

  27. [36]

    R. Lou, L. Zhou, W. Song, A. Fedorov, Z. Tu, B. Jiang, Q. Wang, M. Li, Z. Liu, X. Chen, O. Rader, B. B¨ uchner, Y. Sun, H. Weng, H. Lei, and S. Wang, Nat. Commun. 15, 9823 (2024)

    2024

  28. [37]

    Gerber, S.-L

    S. Gerber, S.-L. Yang, D. Zhu, H. Soifer, J. A. Sobota, S. Rebec, J. J. Lee, T. Jia, B. Moritz, C. Jia, A. Gau- thier, Y. Li, D. Leuenberger, Y. Zhang, L. Chaix, W. Li, H. Jang, J.-S. Lee, M. Yi, G. L. Dakovski, S. Song, J. M. Glownia, S. Nelson, K. W. Kim, Y.-D. Chuang, Z. Hu...

    2017

  29. [38]

    Z. P. Yin, K. Haule, and G. Kotliar, Nature materials 10, 932 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

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