Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Study of ordering in (MoCrTi)$_{100-x}$Al$_x$ refractory high-entropy alloys using machine learning interatomic potential

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Chemical ordering in (MoCrTi)100−xAlx refractory high-entropy alloys is composition-dependent and staged, with a low-temperature B2 structure in which Mo and Al share one sublattice and Cr and Ti share the other; ordering stiffens the alloy

desk verdict A clearly written, genuinely useful computational study of ordering in (MoCrTi)100−xAlx, but the low-temperature sublattice assignment conflicts with the paper's own 0 K DFT ground state, and the headline stiffness peak rests on that assignment. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18099 v1 pith:OCLS2DRD submitted 2026-07-20 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.dis-nn

Jiyao Zhang , Klemens Lechner , Markus Ma{ss}wohl , Petra Spoerk-Erdely , David Holec This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.dis-nn PACS 81.30.Bx62.20.de71.15.Mb
keywords refractoryhigh-entropyalloysshort-rangeorderB2orderingmachinelearninginteratomicpotentialMonteCarlosimulationheatcapacityelasticmoduliMoCrTiAl
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 tries to show that the order–disorder transition in (MoCrTi)100−xAlx is not a single all-or-nothing event but a composition-tunable sequence of pair-specific rearrangements. Using a universal machine-learning interatomic potential with hybrid Monte Carlo/molecular dynamics, it finds that Al25 and Al4 alloys disorder in one cooperative step, while Al16 and Al10 disorder in two steps triggered by different atomic pairs. It further claims that this short-range order is mechanically significant: ordered configurations are stiffer than random ones, and the compositional stiffness trend is non-monotonic, peaking at the Al10 composition. The significance is that short-range order, not just composition, could be a design lever for refractory high-entropy alloy properties.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on three linked tools: a universal machine-learning interatomic potential supplying energies for hybrid Metropolis Monte Carlo/molecular dynamics simulations; Warren-Cowley short-range order parameters plus heat capacity from energy fluctuations, which locate transitions and identify the driving pairs; and a pair-stiffness decomposition (harmonic curvature of bond energy curves) connecting SRO-induced pair populations to elastic moduli. The pair-stiffness analysis is the explanatory bridge: Mo–Mo bonds are stiffest, Al–Al bonds softest, and the ordered Al10 configuration maximizes the weighted stiffness contribution.

What would settle it

Measure the heat capacity of Mo30Cr30Ti30Al10 by differential scanning calorimetry: if no low-temperature peak near 400 K appears, or if it appears with a different magnitude, the staged Al–Al transition is not reproducible. Alternatively, repeat the Monte Carlo with a DFT-validated cluster expansion or with vibrational relaxation and check whether the two-step peaks and the Al10 stiffness peak survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that configurational ordering in (MoCrTi)100−xAlx is element-pair-specific. At low temperature the alloy develops a pseudo-binary B2 structure with Mo and Al on one sublattice and Cr and Ti on the other. The heat-capacity peaks and Warren-Cowley short-range order parameters show that Al25 and Al4 have a single cooperative disordering transition, whereas Al16 and Al10 have two separate transitions: Mo–Al ordering triggers the low-temperature step in Al16, and Al–Al correlations trigger it in Al10, with the remaining pairs disordering at higher temperature. The same ordering changes the stiffness: random solid solutions follow the rule of mixtures, increasing stiffness as

Load-bearing premise

The results assume the machine-learned potential, trained mostly on 0 K DFT data, gives the correct relative free energies of configurational states at 200–2000 K, and that fixing the lattice in Monte Carlo does not change the ordering sequence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the picture is right, the order–disorder transition temperature and even its single- versus two-step character can be tuned by Al content, so composition selection controls the type of ordering kinetics.
  • Ordered states are stiffer than disordered states of the same composition, with elastic constants and moduli enhanced by roughly 17–68% depending on composition, largest at Al10.
  • The low-temperature ordered phase has a specific sublattice occupancy—Mo and Al together, Cr and Ti together—that gives a concrete signature for experimental identification of B2 precipitates.
  • Because random solid solutions follow the rule of mixtures while ordered ones do not, mechanical trends measured on partially ordered samples cannot be compared to simple composition averages.
  • Pair-specific SRO parameters provide atomistic handles: Mo–Al in Al16 and Al–Al in Al10 dominate the low-temperature ordering, offering direct signatures for experimental scattering probes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If pair populations control stiffness, thermal history—annealing to develop short-range order—should be a practical processing knob for hardness and creep resistance in the Al10 composition window, extending the paper's static results.
  • The two-step transition pattern suggests possible metastable intermediate states; quenching from just above the low-temperature step might freeze a partially ordered structure with a different mechanical response, a testable prediction not explored in the paper.
  • The potential's known limitations imply that quantitative transition temperatures and peak magnitudes could shift with a more accurate potential or with vibrational relaxation, but the qualitative staging claim is the part most worth testing.
  • The pair-stiffness descriptor could be used predictively on neighboring refractory systems with different elements, screening for compositions where SRO maximizes stiffness, though that would require new simulations.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses the GRACE-1L-OAM universal machine-learning interatomic potential in hybrid Monte Carlo/molecular dynamics simulations to study configurational ordering in four (MoCrTi)_{100-x}Al_x alloys (x = 25, 16, 10, 4 at.%). It computes constant-volume heat capacities, Warren–Cowley short-range order parameters, and elastic constants/moduli. The authors report composition-dependent order–disorder behavior: a single transition for Al25 and Al4, two-stage transitions for Al16 and Al10 (triggered by Mo–Al and Al–Al pairs, respectively), and a low-temperature B2-like state with Mo and Al on one sublattice and Cr and Ti on the other. They further report that this ordering enhances stiffness and produces a nonmonotonic compositional trend peaking at Al10, interpreted through a pair-stiffness analysis.

Significance. If the findings hold, they would provide a useful atomistic explanation of how Al content controls order–disorder pathways and how chemical short-range order can be exploited to tune elastic properties in refractory high-entropy alloys. The paper has clear strengths: independent DFT benchmarks for three B2 configurations (energy differences within about 0.035 eV/at), comparison with experimental DSC peak shifts, use of a modern universal MLIP, and a transparent pair-stiffness framework. However, the reliability of the main conclusions is currently limited by the unvalidated finite-temperature configurational sampling and by an apparent inconsistency between the 0 K B2 ground state and the 200 K MC sublattice assignment.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3 vs §3.2/3.4] The low-temperature sublattice assignment is not established. The 0 K DFT/uMLIP ground state is (Mo,Ti)_(Cr,Al), whereas the (Mo,Al)_(Cr,Ti) variant used in the low-temperature analysis is higher by only 0.005 eV/at. The text argues that thermal energy vastly exceeds this splitting at 300 K and above, but the ordered state used for Fig. 8 is generated at 200 K, where k_B T ≈ 0.017 eV/at is only about 3.4× the splitting, and the Boltzmann factor for equal degeneracies is about 0.75. This does not yield the (Mo,Al) variant as the thermodynamically preferred state, and the SQS-initialized 2,000,000-swap runs may be kinetically trapped. Because the Al10 stiffness peak is computed from these 200 K snapshots, an incorrect sublattice assignment would invalidate the central mechanical claim. Please compute finite-temperature free energies of the two B2 variants and test initialization/seed depen
  2. [§2.1, §3.1, §3.4] The quantitative results have no statistical error bars. Each composition/temperature point is a single MC run; C_V is obtained from energy fluctuations in the second half of one trajectory, and elastic constants are averages over 'the last six equilibrated MC snapshots' without run-to-run scatter. The staged-peak interpretation and the Al10 anomaly in Fig. 8 rely on differences in peak shapes and positions that could be affected by insufficient equilibration. Please perform multiple independent simulations (different random seeds/SQS) and report standard errors or confidence intervals for C_V, SRO parameters, and elastic constants; also address the fixed-lattice constraint, which the authors note is important for HEA properties.
  3. [§2.2/§3.1] The uMLIP is benchmarked only against three 4-atom B2 configurations at 0 K, but the main claims require accurate relative free energies over 200–2000 K for a much larger configuration space. The authors themselves note that the training data are predominantly 0 K relaxations and lower-order compounds and that fixed-lattice MC excludes local distortions. With ordering-energy differences as small as 0.005 eV/at, this is a real accuracy risk. I request additional DFT validation on representative SQS or partially ordered configurations at the studied compositions, or a quantitative sensitivity analysis. Without it, the pair-level staging (Mo–Al in Al16, Al–Al in Al10) remains a model-specific prediction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2)/Fig. 5] Please clarify the counting convention for like-atom pairs. The text states that in a random solution α = 0, yet the high-temperature asymptote for like-atom pairs in Fig. 5 appears to be about 0.5; define N_i^ξη explicitly (directed vs. undirected pairs) and state the random baseline used.
  2. [§3.2] The statement that 'the local Al/(Mo+Cr) ratio significantly exceeds the nominal macroscopic ratio when Ti is excluded' is vague; please give the numerical comparison for the four compositions.
  3. [Fig. 9(a)] The x-axis label is 'Bond Length (Å)', but the curves are for BCC two-atom cells; please clarify that this is the nearest-neighbor distance and specify whether the cell shape was fixed.
  4. [References] Reference [20] appears to be an in-press citation without complete volume/page details; please update before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the uMLIP-based MC/MD results and direct DFT benchmarks are independent of the paper's claims; self-citations are supporting, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—composition-dependent order-disorder transitions, sublattice preferences, and non-monotonic ordered-state stiffness peaking at Al10—are generated by hybrid MC/MD simulations on a pretrained external uMLIP (GRACE-1L-OAM), not by fitting parameters to the target results. Heat capacities and Warren-Cowley SRO parameters are direct ensemble observables; their correlation is interpretive but not circular. The 0 K DFT calculations independently benchmark the uMLIP and are not used as inputs to the MC sampling. Elastic constants/moduli are computed directly from equilibrated snapshots via the stress-strain method; the pair-stiffness analysis (Fig. 9) is an internal consistency explanation of the moduli trend, not a fitted prediction of it, so it does not reduce the modulus claim to its inputs. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [34], [41], [42]) concern supporting background or prior DFT results that are externally obtained and not load-bearing. The paper's own stated limitations—uMLIP training data lacking high-temperature HEA configurations and fixed-lattice MC excluding local distortions—and the discrepancy between the 0 K DFT ground-state sublattice and the 200 K MC sublattice are accuracy/validity concerns, not circularity. No quoted step exhibits a prediction identical to its input by construction.

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

No free parameters are introduced by this paper; the central results inherit the fitted parameters of the externally trained GRACE-1L-OAM potential. The load-bearing assumptions are the potential's transferability to high-temperature HEA configurational sampling, the fixed-lattice approximation, PBE reference accuracy, representative cell size, and the harmonic pair-stiffness descriptor.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption GRACE-1L-OAM uMLIP accurately represents the configurational energetics of (MoCrTi)100−xAlx over 200–2000 K
    All MC/MD sampling, elastic constants, and pair-stiffness values are computed from this potential; validation is limited to three 0 K B2 configurations (Fig. 7), and the authors concede the training data lack high-temperature HEA configurations (Sec. 3.1).
  • domain assumption Fixed-lattice Metropolis MC samples the equilibrium configurational distribution
    Stages I and III swap atoms on a rigid BCC lattice, excluding local distortions, which the authors state 'are known to be essential for HEA properties' (Sec. 3.1).
  • domain assumption PBE DFT with PAW pseudopotentials gives accurate reference energies for B2 configurations
    Used to benchmark uMLIP energies and to identify the 0 K ground state (Sec. 2.2, Fig. 7).
  • domain assumption The 200-atom BCC 4×5×5 SQS supercell is representative of the alloy's ordering thermodynamics
    All compositions use one small cell; finite-size effects on the staged transitions are not assessed (Sec. 2.1).
  • domain assumption Harmonic pair stiffness fitted to two-atom BCC cells is a valid descriptor of relative alloy modulus
    Used to rationalize the non-monotonic stiffness trend (Eqs. 3–4, Fig. 9); a single-bond spring model ignores many-body and electronic contributions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Study of ordering in (MoCrTi)$_{100-x}$Al$_x$ refractory high-entropy alloys using machine learning interatomic potential." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OCLS2DRD

@misc{pith2026260718099,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Study of ordering in (MoCrTi)$_100-x$Al$_x$ refractory high-entropy alloys using machine learning interatomic potential},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OCLS2DRD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18099}
}
read the original abstract

Refractory high-entropy alloys have emerged as promising candidates for high-temperature applications due to their exceptional mechanical properties. Understanding the thermodynamic mechanisms underlying chemical ordering in these complex systems is critical for optimizing their performance. In this work, by utilizing a universal machine learning interatomic potential with hybrid Monte Carlo and molecular dynamics simulations, the temperature-dependent thermodynamics and mechanical properties of (MoCrTi)(100-x)Alx system have been investigated. The heat capacities and short-range order parameters reveal distinct order-disorder transition behaviors. While the Mo25Cr25Ti25Al25 and Mo32Cr32Ti32Al4 alloys exhibit a single transition dominated by the synergistic ordering of B2-type atomic pairs, the Mo28Cr28Ti28Al16 and Mo30Cr30Ti30Al10 alloys display two separate transitions: a low-temperature stage driven by specific pairs (Mo-Al in Mo28Cr28Ti28Al16; Al-Al in Mo30Cr30Ti30Al10) and a high-temperature stage governed by the remaining pairs. Structural analysis indicates that in the low-temperature ordered B2 phase, Mo and Al share one sublattice while Cr and Ti share the other. Furthermore, the relationship between ordering and mechanical stiffness has been identified. Ordering significantly enhances the elastic constants and moduli, and gives rise to a non-monotonic compositional dependence. Unlike random solid solutions, where stiffness increases monotonically with decreasing Al content, ordered configurations exhibit a non-monotonic trend, peaking at the Mo30Cr30Ti30Al10 alloy. This enhancement is attributed to an optimized population of stiff atomic pairs induced by strong short-range order. These findings provide fundamental insights into the interplay between compositions, chemical ordering, and mechanical performance, offering guidance for the design of refractory high-entropy alloys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18099 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The workflow of hybrid MC/MD simulations. For a detailed explanation of individual stages, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of the B2-based configuration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Heat capacity per atom versus temperature for four alloy compositions: Al25 (blue circles), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Snapshots from MC simulations of the Al25 alloy: (a) initial SQS state, (b) equilibrated ordered [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temperature dependence of the SRO parameters in the 1NN and 2NN shells for RHEAs: (a, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Average atomic fractions in the 1NN and 2NN shells around center atoms of (a) Mo, (b) Cr, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Potential energy of different relaxed B2 configurations at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mechanical properties of ordered (200 K) and disordered (2000 K) structures: (a–c) Elastic constants C11, C12, and C44, with dashed lines indicating linear fits to the compositional dependence (R2 values annotated); (d) bulk modulus B; (e) Young’s modulus EH; (f) shear…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Bond energy landscapes (with the bond stiffness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references

  1. [1]

    O. N. Senkov, G. B. Wilks, D. B. Miracle, C. P. Chuang, P. K. Liaw, Refractory high-entropy alloys, Intermetallics 18 (9) (2010) 1758–1765. 15

    2010

  2. [2]

    O. N. Senkov, G. B. Wilks, J. M. Scott, D. B. Miracle, Mechanical properties of Nb25Mo25Ta25W25 and V20Nb20Mo20Ta20W20 refractory high entropy alloys, In- termetallics 19 (5) (2011) 698–706

    2011

  3. [3]

    Xiong, A

    W. Xiong, A. X. Y. Guo, S. Zhan, C.-T. Liu, S. C. Cao, Refractory high-entropy al- loys: A focused review of preparation methods and properties, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 142 (2023) 196–215

    2023

  4. [4]

    H. Y. Diao, R. Feng, K. A. Dahmen, P. K. Liaw, Fundamental deformation behavior in high-entropy alloys: An overview, Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 21 (5) (2017) 252–266

    2017

  5. [5]

    Feuerbacher, T

    M. Feuerbacher, T. Lienig, C. Thomas, A single-phase bcc high-entropy alloy in the refractory zr-nb-ti-V-hf system, Scr. Mater. 152 (2018) 40–43

    2018

  6. [6]

    Y. D. Wu, Y. H. Cai, T. Wang, J. J. Si, J. Zhu, Y. D. Wang, X. D. Hui, A refractory Hf25Nb25Ti25Zr25 high-entropy alloy with excellent structural stability and tensile properties, Mater. Lett. 130 (2014) 277–280

    2014

  7. [7]

    L. Yang, S. Sen, D. Schliephake, R. J. Vikram, S. Laube, A. Pramanik, A. Chauhan, S. Neumeier, M. Heilmaier, A. Kauffmann, Creep behavior of a precipitation- strengthened A2-B2 refractory high entropy alloy, Acta Mater. 288 (120827) (2025) 120827

    2025

  8. [8]

    Müller, B

    F. Müller, B. Gorr, H.-J. Christ, H. Chen, A. Kauffmann, S. Laube, M. Heilmaier, Formation of complex intermetallic phases in novel refractory high-entropy alloys NbMoCrTiAl and TaMoCrTiAl: Thermodynamic assessment and experimental val- idation, J. Alloys Compd. 842 (155726) (2020) 155726

    2020

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Laube, G

    S. Laube, G. Winkens, A. Kauffmann, J. Li, C. Kirchlechner, M. Heilmaier, Strength of disordered and ordered al-containing refractory high-entropy alloys, Adv. Eng. Mater. 26 (17) (2024) 2301797

    2024

  2. [10]

    Christ, M

    S.Laube, H.Chen, A.Kauffmann, S.Schellert, F.Müller, B.Gorr, J.Müller, B.Butz, H.-J. Christ, M. Heilmaier, Controlling crystallographic ordering in Mo–Cr–Ti–Al high entropy alloys to enhance ductility, J. Alloys Compd. 823 (153805) (2020) 153805

    2020

  3. [11]

    X. Liu, J. Zhang, Z. Pei, Machine learning for high-entropy alloys: Progress, chal- lenges and opportunities, Prog. Mater. Sci. 131 (101018) (2023) 101018

    2023

  4. [12]

    X.-G. Li, C. Chen, H. Zheng, Y. Zuo, S. P. Ong, Complex strengthening mechanisms in the NbMoTaW multi-principal element alloy, Npj Comput. Mater. 6 (1) (2020) 1–10

    2020

  5. [13]

    X. Wang, F. Maresca, P. Cao, The hierarchical energy landscape of screw dislocation motion in refractory high-entropy alloys, Acta Mater. 234 (118022) (2022) 118022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Gubaev, V

    K. Gubaev, V. Zaverkin, P. Srinivasan, A. I. Duff, J. Kästner, B. Grabowski, Per- formance of two complementary machine-learned potentials in modelling chemically complex systems, Npj Comput. Mater. 9 (1) (2023) 1–15. 16

    2023

  7. [15]

    A. Jain, S. P. Ong, G. Hautier, W. Chen, W. D. Richards, S. Dacek, S. Cholia, D.Gunter, D.Skinner, G.Ceder, K.A.Persson, Commentary: Thematerialsproject: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation, APL Mater. 1 (1) (2013) 011002

    2013

  8. [16]

    Shuang, Z

    F. Shuang, Z. Wei, K. Liu, W. Gao, P. Dey, Universal machine learning interatomic potentials poised to supplant DFT in modeling general defects in metals and random alloys, Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 6 (3) (2025) 030501

    2025

  9. [17]

    J. Xia, Y. Zhang, B. Jiang, The evolution of machine learning potentials for molecules, reactions and materials, Chem. Soc. Rev. 54 (10) (2025) 4790–4821

    2025

  10. [18]

    Hjorth Larsen, J

    A. Hjorth Larsen, J. Jørgen Mortensen, J. Blomqvist, I. E. Castelli, R. Christensen, M. Dułak, J. Friis, M. N. Groves, B. Hammer, C. Hargus, E. D. Hermes, P. C. Jennings, P. Bjerre Jensen, J. Kermode, J. R. Kitchin, E. Leonhard Kolsbjerg, J. Kubal, K. Kaasbjerg, S. Lysgaard, J...

    2017

  11. [19]

    Bochkarev, Y

    A. Bochkarev, Y. Lysogorskiy, R. Drautz, Graph atomic cluster expansion for semilo- cal interactions beyond equivariant message passing, Phys. Rev. X. 14 (2) (2024) 021036

    2024

  12. [20]

    Reiners-Sakic, R

    A. Reiners-Sakic, R. Schnitzer, D. Holec, DFT and MLIP study of solute segregation to coherent and semi-coherentα-fe/Fe3C interfaces, Npj Comput. Mater. (2026) 1– 11

    2026

  13. [21]

    Gehringer, M

    D. Gehringer, M. Friák, D. Holec, Models of configurationally-complex alloys made simple, Comput. Phys. Commun. 286 (108664) (2023) 108664

    2023

  14. [22]

    Metropolis, A

    N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, E. Teller, Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines, J. Chem. Phys. 21 (6) (1953) 1087– 1092

    1953

  15. [23]

    C. D. Woodgate, J. B. Staunton, Short-range order and compositional phase stability in refractory high-entropy alloys via first-principles theory and atomistic modeling: NbMoTa, NbMoTaW, and VNbMoTaW, Phys. Rev. Mater. 7 (1) (2023) 013801

    2023

  16. [24]

    M. P. Allen, D. J. Tildesley, Computer simulation of liquids: Second edition, Oxford University Press, London, England, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Dipl.-Ing

    B. Dipl.-Ing. Dominik Franz Josef Gehringer, Atomistic approaches for investigating planar defects in compositionally complex alloys, Ph.D. thesis, MONTANUNIVER- SITÄT LEOBEN (Jun. 2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Kresse, J

    G. Kresse, J. Furthmüller, Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy cal- culations using a plane-wave basis set, Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter 54 (16) (1996) 11169–11186. 17

    1996

  19. [27]

    Kresse, J

    G. Kresse, J. Furthmüller, Efficiency of ab-initio total energy calculations for metals and semiconductors using a plane-wave basis set, Comput. Mater. Sci. 6 (1) (1996) 15–50

    1996

  20. [28]

    Hohenberg, W

    P. Hohenberg, W. Kohn, Density functional theory (DFT), Phys. Rev. (1964)

    1964

  21. [29]

    W. Kohn, L. J. Sham, Self-consistent equations including exchange and correlation effects, Phys. Rev. 140 (4A) (1965) A1133–A1138

    1965

  22. [30]

    Kresse, D

    G. Kresse, D. Joubert, From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented- wave method, Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter 59 (3) (1999) 1758–1775

    1999

  23. [31]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (18) (1996) 3865–3868

    1996

  24. [32]

    J. F. Nye, Physical properties of crystals: Their representation by tensors and matri- ces, Oxford science publications, Oxford University Press, London, England, 1985

    1985

  25. [33]

    R. Yu, J. Zhu, H. Q. Ye, Calculations of single-crystal elastic constants made simple, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181 (3) (2010) 671–675

    2010

  26. [34]

    Abdoshahi, M

    N. Abdoshahi, M. Dehghani, L. Hatzenbichler, P. Spoerk-Erdely, A. V. Ruban, M. Musi, S. Mayer, J. Spitaler, D. Holec, Structural stability and mechanical proper- ties of TiAl+Mo alloys: A comprehensive ab initio study, Acta Mater. 221 (117427) (2021) 117427

    2021

  27. [35]

    Hill, The elastic behaviour of a crystalline aggregate, Proc

    R. Hill, The elastic behaviour of a crystalline aggregate, Proc. Phys. Soc. 65 (5) (1952) 349–354

    1952

  28. [36]

    Y. Song, R. Yang, D. Li, W. T. Wu, Z. X. Guo, Calculation of theoretical strengths and bulk moduli of bcc metals, Phys. Rev. B 59 (22) (1999) 14220

    1999

  29. [37]

    H. Chen, A. Kauffmann, S. Seils, T. Boll, C. H. Liebscher, I. Harding, K. S. Kumar, D. V. Szabó, S. Schlabach, S. Kauffmann-Weiss, F. Müller, B. Gorr, H.-J. Christ, M. Heilmaier, Crystallographic ordering in a series of al-containing refractory high entropy alloys Ta–Nb–Mo–Cr–...

    2019

  30. [38]

    Barros-Luque, M

    L. Barros-Luque, M. Shuaibi, X. Fu, B. M. Wood, M. Dzamba, M. Gao, A. Rizvi, M. Uyttendaele, C. L. Zitnick, Z. W. Ulissi, The open materials 2024 (OMat24) inorganic materials dataset and models, Nat. Comput. Sci. 6 (6) (2026) 642–652

    2024

  31. [39]

    Schmidt, N

    J. Schmidt, N. Hoffmann, H.-C. Wang, P. Borlido, P. J. M. A. Carriço, T. F. T. Cerqueira, S. Botti, M. A. L. Marques, Machine-learning-assisted determination of the global zero-temperature phase diagram of materials, Adv. Mater. 35 (22) (2023) e2210788

    2023

  32. [40]

    B. Deng, P. Zhong, K. Jun, J. Riebesell, K. Han, C. J. Bartel, G. Ceder, CHGNet as a pretrained universal neural network potential for charge-informed atomistic mod- elling, Nat. Mach. Intell. 5 (9) (2023) 1031–1041. 18

    2023

  33. [41]

    Holec, R

    D. Holec, R. K. Reddy, T. Klein, H. Clemens, Preferential site occupancy of alloying elements in TiAl-based phases, J. Appl. Phys. 119 (20) (2016) 205104

    2016

  34. [42]

    Dehghani, A

    M. Dehghani, A. V. Ruban, N. Abdoshahi, D. Holec, J. Spitaler, Stability and or- dering of bcc and hcp TiAl+Mo phases: An ab initio study, Comput. Mater. Sci. 205 (2022) 111163

    2022

  35. [43]

    Laube, A

    S. Laube, A. Kauffmann, S. Schellert, S. Seils, A. S. Tirunilai, C. Greiner, Y. M. Eggeler, B. Gorr, H.-J. Christ, M. Heilmaier, Formation and thermal stability of two- phase microstructures in al-containing refractory compositionally complex alloys, Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. ...

    2022

  36. [44]

    O. V. Sobol, V. F. Gorban, N. A. Krapivka, T. G. Rogul, S. A. Firstov, Microdistor- tions, hardness, and young’s modulus of multicomponent bcc solid solutions, Powder Metal. Metal Ceram. 59 (11-12) (2021) 715–721. 19

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.