Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Probing orbital magnetism of a kagome metal CsV3Sb5 by a tuning fork resonator

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cooling CsV3Sb5 below roughly 30 K produces a tiny orbital magnetic moment along the c-axis, breaking time-reversal symmetry as expected for loop-current order.

desk verdict A careful magnetotropic study that likely finds a real 30 K thermodynamic anomaly in CsV3Sb5; the c-axis orbital-moment attribution is reasonable but not uniquely established, so the paper deserves review with a request for the supplementary model details. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05150 v1 pith:MQQDPWZD submitted 2025-05-08 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Hengrui Gui , Lin Yang , Xiaoyu Wang , Dong Chen , Zekai Shi , Jiawen Zhang , Jia Wei , Keyi Zhou
show 8 more authors
Walter Schnelle Yongjun Zhang Yu Liu Alimamy F. Bangura Ziqiang Wang Claudia Felser Huiqiu Yuan Lin Jiao
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords kagomemetalCsV3Sb5orbitalmagnetismtime-reversalsymmetrybreakingmagnetotropicsusceptibilitytuningforkresonatorchargedensitywaveloopcurrent
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

By measuring the magnetotropic susceptibility of CsV3Sb5 with a quartz tuning fork resonator, the paper establishes a thermodynamic phase transition near 30 K that develops an extremely anisotropic magnetic response. The angular dependence of the resonant frequency shift changes from a smooth cos(2θ) form to sharp dips when the magnetic field lies in the ab-plane, which can be reproduced by a simple model of a two-dimensional ferromagnetic-type structure with the moment along the c-axis. The inferred moment is smaller than 0.03 Bohr magneton per vanadium, saturates in a field of about 0.2 T, and shows sweep-rate-dependent hysteresis that indicates slow domain dynamics. The authors conclude that the transition breaks time-reversal symmetry through an orbital, loop-current-like magnetic order rather than a conventional spin moment, and they place this phase within a cascade of CDW-related transitions at 56 K, 70 K, and 94 K.

What carries the argument

The probe is a quartz tuning fork whose resonant frequency shift Δf(θ) is proportional to the magnetotropic susceptibility k = ∂²F/∂θ², the second derivative of the free energy with respect to the field angle θ. The load-bearing comparison is between the measured Δf(θ) and a simple model of a two-dimensional ferromagnetic-type magnetic structure with a c-axis moment, which reproduces the sharp dips observed at B∥ab. This model converts the depth and field dependence of the dips into a moment size (upper limit 0.03 μB/V) and a saturation field (~0.2 T). The resonator also serves as a low-frequency clock near 45 kHz: the appearance of hysteresis only above certain rotation speeds quantifies the slow domain dynamics of the ordered state.

What would settle it

Take the same crystal and remount it on the tuning fork with its c-axis rotated 90° about the rotation axis, then remeasure Δf(θ) at 10 K and 9 T: if the sharp dips still lie where the field is in the crystal's ab-plane, the c-axis orbital moment assignment is confirmed; if the dips vanish or shift to a different absolute angle, they are an artifact of the mounting geometry rather than a property of the sample. A companion check is to measure the c-axis magnetization on the same crystal in fields up to 0.5 T with a SQUID magnetometer: a resolved moment above 0.03 μB per vanadium, or a saturation field far from 0.2 T, would directly contradict the paper's estimate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the phase transition at around 30 K in CsV3Sb5 breaks time-reversal symmetry by developing an orbital magnetic moment along the c-axis. This is inferred from tuning fork resonator measurements of the magnetotropic susceptibility, whose angular line shape develops sharp dips at B∥ab below T1, consistent with a model of a two-dimensional ferromagnetic-type magnetic structure. The moment is tiny, with an upper limit of about 0.03 μB per vanadium, too small to be of electron-spin origin, and it saturates in a magnetic field near 0.2 T. Additional evidence includes very slow relaxation dynamics, with hysteresis only appearing at rotation speeds above roughly 0.15°/sec, and the alignment of the 30 K boundary with anomalies seen by nonlinear conductivity, anomalous Nernst effect, muon spin resonance, and scanning tunneling spectroscopy. The paper interprets these observations as direct thermodynamic support for a loop-current (orbital) CDW phase, and reports a cascade of other transitions — at 56 K (first order), 70 K, and 94 K — that map onto previously observed CDW and symmetry-breaking events.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that the sharp dips in Δf(θ) at B∥ab are produced by a c-axis orbital moment in a two-dimensional ferromagnetic-type magnetic structure, rather than by an in-plane ordered state, sample shape effects, or a mechanical artifact of the tuning fork mount; the paper explicitly states it cannot detect electronic nematicity and cannot exclude in-plane time-reversal-symmetry breaking phases.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 30 K transition becomes a thermodynamic reference point for the TRS-breaking phase in CsV3Sb5, reconciling muon spin resonance, nonlinear conductivity, and anomalous Nernst anomalies with a single free-energy signature.
  • Because the moment is too small for spin order and points along c, the low-temperature phase is a rare experimental realization of orbital magnetism in an itinerant kagome metal.
  • The small saturation field (~0.2 T) and slow domain dynamics imply the ordered state is highly susceptible to strain, field, and pressure, so experiments that detwin the sample should reveal larger effective moments.
  • The cascade of transitions at 94, 70, 56, and 30 K maps a hierarchy of CDW and symmetry-breaking orders, with the 70 K feature possibly corresponding to a staggered loop-current state with antiphase layers that cancels the net moment.
  • The tuning fork technique, applied here to a kagome metal, is a general tool for finding thermodynamic signatures of time-reversal symmetry breaking in materials with sub-0.1 μB moments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the orbital moment is uniform along c, a magnetic field along c should induce a measurable anomalous Hall or Kerr response below 30 K with the same 0.2 T scale; the paper does not report such transport-optical cross-checks, and a future experiment could test this directly.
  • The angular line shape of Δf(θ) may be sensitive to the in-plane geometry of the ordered state: comparing the measured dips against simulations for staggered versus uniform loop-current patterns could discriminate between the candidate CDW patterns discussed in the literature.
  • The 70 K anomaly, if it is a TRS-breaking state with antiphase layers, is hidden from bulk magnetization but could be probed by second-harmonic generation or circular dichroism that couples to the layer-stacking chirality.
  • Because the tuning fork measures only the curvature of the free energy, a quantitative comparison between Δf(θ) and torque magnetometry on the same crystal (already partly reported in the supplementary) would provide an independent check that the dips are not a resonator artifact.
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 manuscript reports tuning fork resonator measurements of the magnetotropic susceptibility of the kagome metal CsV3Sb5 as a function of temperature, magnetic field, and rotation angle over a broad parameter range. The authors identify a cascade of anomalies in the CDW phase, most notably a sharp feature at T1 ≈ 30 K, where the angular response deviates from the high-temperature cos(2θ) form and develops sharp dips when the magnetic field lies in the ab-plane. They interpret this as a thermodynamic phase transition that breaks time-reversal symmetry through a highly anisotropic magnetic moment along the c-axis, with an upper limit of 0.03 μB per vanadium ion, which they argue is too small for conventional spin order. They additionally report sweep-rate-dependent hysteresis below 30 K, taken as evidence of slow domain dynamics, and extract a saturation field of about 0.2 T that is compared with nonlinear conductivity data. The authors conclude that the results support an orbital (loop-current) origin of the low-temperature magnetic state.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, the paper would provide a thermodynamic signature of the proposed time-reversal-symmetry-breaking orbital magnetic state in CsV3Sb5, a long-sought quantity in a heavily debated system. The measurements are extensive, and the crystals are of high quality with residual resistance ratios of 300–500. The sharp 30 K onset and the sweep-rate-dependent hysteresis are valuable empirical constraints regardless of the model used. However, the significance is currently limited by the model dependence of the central inference: the assignment of the magnetic moment to the c-axis rests on a model presented only in the Supplementary Information and on a uniqueness assumption that the authors themselves do not fully test. The manuscript is honest about these limitations, but as written the central claim is not uniquely supported by the data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, paragraph 2 and last paragraph of Section II] The central claim that the sharp dips at B∥ab are 'signatures for extremely anisotropic magnetic moment along the c-axis' is not uniquely established. The line shape is simulated by a 2D ferromagnetic-type model (Supplementary Eq. 6), but no evidence is provided that an in-plane uniaxial order (nematic, stripe, or chiral) with domain reorientation could not produce the same sharp features at B∥ab in the ac-plane rotation. The authors explicitly state they cannot discern electronic nematicity directly and that their sample configurations cannot capture in-plane rotation, so they cannot exclude in-plane TRS-breaking phases. Because the c-axis assignment is the foundation for the orbital-moment interpretation and for the quantitative estimate of the moment, the manuscript should either provide a model comparison that rules out in-plane orderings or present a direct measurement (e.g., in-plane torque or magnetization) that distinguishes the two scenarios. Without this, the conclusion that the 30 K transition develops an orbital magnetic moment along the c-axis is not uniquely supported.
  2. [Section III, first paragraph (upper limit mc ≈ 0.03 μB/V)] The extraction of the upper limit for the magnetic moment relies on a background subtraction and a model presented in Supplementary Note 2, neither of which is reproduced in the main text. Since the quantitative smallness of the moment is used to argue against a spin origin, the uncertainty in the absolute calibration must be quantified. If the model-dependent or background-related uncertainty permits a moment larger than a few hundredths of a Bohr magneton per vanadium, the argument that the moment is incompatible with spin order weakens. The authors should explicitly state the largest moment that is compatible with their data and derivation, and provide the full error budget in the main text or in a clearly referenced appendix.
  3. [Section II, paragraph 4 (Fig. 3)] The sweep-rate-dependent hysteresis is interpreted as evidence of slow domain dynamics, but no control experiment or calibration is shown to exclude instrument-related lag (for example, PLL time constants or mechanical resonance effects). A control measurement on a nonmagnetic sample under identical conditions, or a field-sweep counterpart at fixed angle, would strengthen the conclusion that the hysteresis reflects an intrinsic slow dynamical process of the magnetic state below T1. If the hysteresis is instrumental in origin, the claim of 'extremely slow dynamics' would lose its evidential support for TRS breaking.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1(b) caption] The caption lists temperatures as '45K, 40K, 35K, ...' but the individual curves in the panel are not labeled with a legend, making it difficult for the reader to associate each curve with its temperature. A legend or explicit labels on the curves would improve clarity.
  2. [Methods, sample preparation] The phrase 'atonic ratio' should be corrected to 'atomic ratio'.
  3. [Section III, last paragraph] The word 'peizomagnetic' should be 'piezomagnetic'.
  4. [References] References [26] and [47] are identical (Denner, Thomale, and Neupert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 217601 (2021)); one of them should be removed or renumbered.
  5. [Section II, last paragraph before Discussion] The sentence 'the sample is either isotropic or possesses an exceedingly weak susceptibility' above TCDW uses 'or' where 'and' would be more precise, since a perfectly isotropic response is not expected for a crystal with this symmetry.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the magnetotropic measurement, phase boundary, and saturation behavior are independent empirical inputs; cited loop-current theory is used only as a consistency check.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The tuning-fork measurement records a resonant-frequency shift proportional to the magnetotropic susceptibility k = ∂²F/∂θ² (Ref. [41]), which is a definition of the measured quantity rather than an assumed conclusion. The 30 K phase boundary is established by independent empirical features: the sharp onset of Δf(T), the deviation from the high-temperature cos(2θ) line shape, the small-field crossover near 0.15 T, and sweep-rate-dependent hysteresis attributed to domain dynamics. The statement that the sharp dips at B∥ab 'are signatures for extremely anisotropic magnetic moment along the c-axis' is a model-based interpretation (Supplementary Eq. 6), not a fitted parameter later relabeled as a prediction; the model is used to quantify the anisotropy and to estimate an upper limit of the moment, but the existence and thermodynamic signature of the transition do not depend on that model. The comparison of a tanh magnetization curve with Bc = 0.2 T to the experimentally fitted b parameters is a consistency check, and the independent nonlinear-conductivity value of 0.15 T provides an external benchmark. The mean-field LC2 calculation from Ref. [32], coauthored by one of the present authors, is invoked only after the experimental phase transition is established and is used to show consistency with a small orbital moment; it is not the evidence for time-reversal-symmetry breaking, which instead rests on the observed hysteresis and slow dynamics. The paper's explicit caveats that it 'cannot discern electronic nematicity directly' and could not exclude in-plane TRS-breaking phases describe an interpretive underdetermination, not a circular reduction of the measurement to its assumptions. No derivation step reduces by construction to its own input, so the analysis is self-contained apart from normal use of prior technique and theory references.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim builds on the definition of magnetotropic susceptibility, the assumption that the sharp dips reflect a c-axis moment within a 2D ferromagnetic-type model, the interpretation of hysteresis as domain dynamics, and the baseline paramagnetic behavior above 30 K. No new entities are posited; the loop current order is taken from prior theory.

free parameters (3)
  • Saturation field Bc = 0.2 T
    Used to normalize the theoretical magnetization curve in Fig. 2(b); the value is set in the paper and then compared to the fitted parameter b, which is close to 0.15 T from non-linear conductivity.
  • Parameter b (Supplementary Eq. 7) = not given in main text
    Fitted to the angular dependent frequency data to describe the field dependence of the magnetic response; used to infer the saturation field.
  • Upper limit orbital moment mc = 0.03 Bohr magneton per V
    Derived from the frequency difference between B∥ab and B∥c with an unsubtracted background, hence an upper limit.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The resonant frequency shift Δf is directly proportional to the magnetotropic susceptibility k = ∂²F/∂θ².
    From Refs. 40 and 41; defines the measurement.
  • standard math In the linear magnetic response regime, Δf(θ) follows cos(2θ).
    Used to identify the paramagnetic regime above 30 K.
  • domain assumption The sharp dips at B∥ab are signatures of an extremely anisotropic magnetic moment along the c-axis, modeled by a 2D ferromagnetic-type magnetic structure.
    The model is presented in Supplementary Eq. (6); if the actual magnetic structure is different, the moment direction and magnitude estimates change.
  • domain assumption The sweep-rate dependent hysteresis indicates formation of magnetic domains and time-reversal symmetry breaking.
    Hysteresis in a rotating field is interpreted as domains with slow dynamics; other origins (e.g., magnetostriction or sample motion) are not fully excluded.
  • domain assumption The material is a paramagnetic metal above 30 K with χab > χc.
    Based on the cos(2θ) behavior of Δf(θ) above T1; this sets the baseline for the magnetic transition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing orbital magnetism of a kagome metal CsV3Sb5 by a tuning fork resonator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MQQDPWZD

@misc{pith2026250505150,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing orbital magnetism of a kagome metal CsV3Sb5 by a tuning fork resonator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MQQDPWZD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05150}
}
abstract

The recently discovered kagome metal CsV$_3$Sb$_5$ exhibits a complex phase diagram that encompasses frustrated magnetism, topological charge density wave (CDW), and superconductivity. One CDW state that breaks time-reversal symmetry was proposed in this compound, while the exact nature of the putative magnetic state remains elusive. To examine the thermodynamic state of CsV$_3$Sb$_5$ and assess the character of the associated magnetism, we conducted tuning fork resonator measurements of magnetotropic susceptibility over a broad range of angles, magnetic fields, and temperature. We found a cascade of phase transition in the CDW phase. Of particular interest is a highly anisotropic magnetic structure that arises below about 30~K, with a magnetic moment along the $c$-axis that has an extremely small magnitude. This magnetic state demonstrates extremely slow dynamics and small saturate field, all suggest that electronic phase below 30~K breaks time reversal symmetry and has an unconventional origin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05150 by the authors.

Figure 4
Figure 4. The tiny change of f indicates the magnetic anisotropy is negligible even at 9 T, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L. Ye, M. Kang, J. Liu, F. von Cube, C. R. Wicker, T. Suzuki, C. Jozwiak, A. Bostwick, E. Rotenberg, D. C. Bell, L. Fu, R. Comin, and J. G. Checkelsky, Nature 555, 638 (2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    E. Liu, Y. Sun, N. Kumar, L. Muechler, A. Sun, L. Jiao, S.-Y. Yang, D. Liu, A. Liang, Q. Xu, J. Kroder, V. S¨ uß, H. Borrmann, C. Shekhar, Z. Wang, C. Xi, W. Wang, W. Schnelle, S. Wirth, Y. Chen, S. T. B. Goennenwein, and C. Felser, Nature Physics 14, 1125 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    J.-X. Yin, S. S. Zhang, H. Li, K. Jiang, G. Chang, B. Zhang, B. Lian, C. Xiang, I. Belopolski, H. Zheng, T. A. Cochran, S.-Y. Xu, G. Bian, K. Liu, T.-R. Chang, H. Lin, Z.-Y. Lu, Z. Wang, S. Jia, W. Wang, and M. Z. Hasan, Nature 562, 91 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    J.-X. Yin, B. Lian, and M. Z. Hasan, Nature 612, 647 (2022). 10

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    B. R. Ortiz, L. C. Gomes, J. R. Morey, M. Winiarski, M. Bordelon, J. S. Mangum, I. W. H. Oswald, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, J. R. Neilson, S. D. Wilson, E. Ertekin, T. M. McQueen, and E. S. Toberer, Physical Review Materials 3, 094407 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    B. R. Ortiz, S. M. L. Teicher, Y. Hu, J. L. Zuo, P. M. Sarte, E. C. Schueller, A. M. M. Abeykoon, M. J. Krogstad, S. Rosenkranz, R. Osborn, R. Seshadri, L. Balents, J. He, and S. D. Wilson, Physical Review Letters 125, 247002 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Q. Yin, Z. Tu, C. Gong, Y. Fu, S. Yan, and H. Lei, Chinese Physics Letters 38, 037403 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    H. Tan, Y. Liu, Z. Wang, and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 046401 (2021)

    2021

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Xiang, Q

    Y. Xiang, Q. Li, Y. Li, W. Xie, H. Yang, Z. Wang, Y. Yao, and H.-H. Wen, Nature Commu- nications 12, 6727 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    L. Nie, K. Sun, W. Ma, D. Song, L. Zheng, Z. Liang, P. Wu, F. Yu, J. Li, M. Shan, D. Zhao, S. Li, B. Kang, Z. Wu, Y. Zhou, K. Liu, Z. Xiang, J. Ying, Z. Wang, T. Wu, and X. Chen, Nature 604, 59 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    H. Li, H. Zhao, B. R. Ortiz, T. Park, M. Ye, L. Balents, Z. Wang, S. D. Wilson, and I. Zeljkovic, Nature Physics 18, 265 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    H. Li, H. Zhao, B. R. Ortiz, Y. Oey, Z. Wang, S. D. Wilson, and I. Zeljkovic, Nature Physics 19, 637 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Jiang, J.-X

    Y.-X. Jiang, J.-X. Yin, M. M. Denner, N. Shumiya, B. R. Ortiz, G. Xu, Z. Guguchia, J. He, M. S. Hossain, X. Liu, J. Ruff, L. Kautzsch, S. S. Zhang, G. Chang, I. Belopolski, Q. Zhang, T. A. Cochran, D. Multer, M. Litskevich, Z.-J. Cheng, X. P. Yang, Z. Wang, R. Thomale, T. Neup...

    2021

  6. [14]

    Y. Xing, S. Bae, E. Ritz, F. Yang, T. Birol, A. N. Capa Salinas, B. R. Ortiz, S. D. Wilson, Z. Wang, R. M. Fernandes, and V. Madhavan, Nature 631, 60 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    L. Yu, C. Wang, Y. Zhang, M. Sander, S. Ni, Z. Lu, S. Ma, Z. Wang, Z. Zhao, H. Chen, K. Jiang, Y. Zhang, H. Yang, F. Zhou, X. Dong, S. L. Johnson, M. J. Graf, J. Hu, H.-J. Gao, and Z. Zhao, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2107.10714 (2021)

    2021 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    Mielke, D

    C. Mielke, D. Das, J.-X. Yin, H. Liu, R. Gupta, Y.-X. Jiang, M. Medarde, X. Wu, H. C. Lei, J. Chang, P. Dai, Q. Si, H. Miao, R. Thomale, T. Neupert, Y. Shi, R. Khasanov, M. Z. Hasan, H. Luetkens, and Z. Guguchia, Nature 602, 245 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    C. Guo, C. Putzke, S. Konyzheva, X. Huang, M. Gutierrez-Amigo, I. Errea, D. Chen, M. G. Vergniory, C. Felser, M. H. Fischer, T. Neupert, and P. J. W. Moll, Nature 611, 461 (2022). 11

    2022

  10. [18]

    Y. Xu, Z. Ni, Y. Liu, B. R. Ortiz, Q. Deng, S. D. Wilson, B. Yan, L. Balents, and L. Wu, Nature Physics 18, 1470 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    H. Li, S. Wan, H. Li, Q. Li, Q. Gu, H. Yang, Y. Li, Z. Wang, Y. Yao, and H.-H. Wen, Physical Review B 105, 045102 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    D. R. Saykin, C. Farhang, E. D. Kountz, D. Chen, B. R. Ortiz, C. Shekhar, C. Felser, S. D. Wilson, R. Thomale, J. Xia, and A. Kapitulnik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 016901 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    E. M. Kenney, B. R. Ortiz, C. Wang, S. D. Wilson, and M. J. Graf, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 33, 235801 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Z. Shan, P. K. Biswas, S. K. Ghosh, T. Tula, A. D. Hillier, D. Adroja, S. Cottrell, G.-H. Cao, Y. Liu, X. Xu, Y. Song, H. Yuan, and M. Smidman, Physical Review Research 4, 033145 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    C. Guo, G. Wagner, C. Putzke, D. Chen, K. Wang, L. Zhang, M. Gutierrez-Amigo, I. Errea, M. G. Vergniory, C. Felser, M. H. Fischer, T. Neupert, and P. J. W. Moll, Nature Physics 20, 579 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    X. Feng, K. Jiang, Z. Wang, and J. Hu, Science Bulletin 66, 1384 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    T. Park, M. Ye, and L. Balents, Physical Review B 104, 035142 (2021)

    2021

  18. [27]

    Lin and R

    Y.-P. Lin and R. M. Nandkishore, Physical Review B 104, 045122 (2021)

    2021

  19. [28]

    X. Feng, Y. Zhang, K. Jiang, and J. Hu, Physical Review B 104, 165136 (2021)

    2021

  20. [29]

    Zhou and Z

    S. Zhou and Z. Wang, Nature Communications 13, 7288 (2022)

    2022

  21. [30]

    M. H. Christensen, T. Birol, B. M. Andersen, and R. M. Fernandes, Phys. Rev. B 106, 144504 (2022)

    2022

  22. [31]

    Tazai, Y

    R. Tazai, Y. Yamakawa, S. Onari, and H. Kontani, Science Advances 8, eabl4108 (2022)

    2022

  23. [32]

    J.-W. Dong, Z. Wang, and S. Zhou, Phys. Rev. B 107, 045127 (2023)

    2023

  24. [33]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Physical Review Letters 61, 2015 (1988)

    1988

  25. [34]

    C. M. Varma and T. Giamarchi, Strongly Interacting Fermions and High Tc Superconductivity (Proceedings of the Les Houches Summer School of Theoretical Physics, Les Houches, 1991, edited by B. Doucot and J. Zinn-Justin (Elsevier, New York, 1995), Session LVI., 1995)

    1991

  26. [35]

    C. M. Varma, Physical Review B 55, 14554 (1997)

    1997

  27. [36]

    Shekhter and C

    A. Shekhter and C. M. Varma, Phys. Rev. B 106, 214419 (2022)

    2022

  28. [37]

    P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 124, 41 (1961). 12

    1961

  29. [38]

    G. T. Rad, Magnetism, edited by H. Suhl) (Academic Press, 2012)

    2012

  30. [39]

    N. N. Greenwood and A. Earnshaw, Chemistry of the elements (2nd ed.) (Elsevier, New York, 1985)

    1985

  31. [40]

    K. A. Modic, R. D. McDonald, J. P. C. Ruff, M. D. Bachmann, Y. Lai, J. C. Palmstrom, D. Graf, M. K. Chan, F. F. Balakirev, J. B. Betts, G. S. Boebinger, M. Schmidt, M. J. Lawler, D. A. Sokolov, P. J. W. Moll, B. J. Ramshaw, and A. Shekhter, Nature Physics 17, 240 (2021)

    2021

  32. [41]

    Shekhter, R

    A. Shekhter, R. D. McDonald, B. J. Ramshaw, and K. A. Modic, Phys. Rev. B 108, 035111 (2023)

    2023

  33. [42]

    D. Chen, B. He, M. Yao, Y. Pan, H. Lin, W. Schnelle, Y. Sun, J. Gooth, L. Taillefer, and C. Felser, Physical Review B 105, L201109 (2022)

    2022

  34. [43]

    Tazai, Y

    R. Tazai, Y. Yamakawa, and H. Kontani, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121, e2303476121 (2024)

    2024

  35. [44]

    de la Torre, D

    A. de la Torre, D. M. Kennes, M. Claassen, S. Gerber, J. W. McIver, and M. A. Sentef, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 041002 (2021)

    2021

  36. [45]

    Stahl, D

    Q. Stahl, D. Chen, T. Ritschel, C. Shekhar, E. Sadrollahi, M. C. Rahn, O. Ivashko, M. v. Zim- mermann, C. Felser, and J. Geck, Physical Review B 105, 195136 (2022)

    2022

  37. [46]

    H. Zhao, H. Li, B. R. Ortiz, S. M. L. Teicher, T. Park, M. Ye, Z. Wang, L. Balents, S. D. Wilson, and I. Zeljkovic, Nature 599, 216 (2021)

    2021

  38. [47]

    M. M. Denner, R. Thomale, and T. Neupert, Physical Review Letters 127, 217601 (2021)

    2021

  39. [48]

    Grandi, A

    F. Grandi, A. Consiglio, M. A. Sentef, R. Thomale, and D. M. Kennes, Physical Review B 107, 155131 (2023)

    2023

  40. [49]

    Gruner, Density Waves In Solids ((Addison-Wesley, 1994), 1994)

    G. Gruner, Density Waves In Solids ((Addison-Wesley, 1994), 1994)

    1994

  41. [50]

    Asaba, A

    T. Asaba, A. Onishi, Y. Kageyama, T. Kiyosue, K. Ohtsuka, S. Suetsugu, Y. Kohsaka, T. Gaggl, Y. Kasahara, H. Murayama, K. Hashimoto, R. Tazai, H. Kontani, B. R. Ortiz, S. D. Wilson, Q. Li, H.-H. Wen, T. Shibauchi, and Y. Matsuda, Nat. Phys. 20, 40 (2024)

    2024

  42. [51]

    Li` ege, Y

    W. Li` ege, Y. Xie, D. Bounoua, Y. Sidis, F. Bourdarot, Y. Li, Z. Wang, J.-X. Yin, P. Dai, and P. Bourges, Phys. Rev. B 110, 195109 (2024)

    2024

  43. [52]

    Akiyama, N

    T. Akiyama, N. F. de Rooij, U. Staufer, M. Detterbeck, D. Braendlin, S. Waldmeier, and M. Scheidiger, Review of Scientific Instruments 81, 063706 (2010). 13 Acknowledgments The authors thank Arkady Shekhter for his substantial help in data analysis and writing the manuscript. ...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.