Pith. sign in

REVIEW 8 minor 49 references

Recent progress on liquid transport growth of quantum materials

T0 review · 0 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Liquid transport growth yields clean, abundant single crystals of quantum materials that conventional flux growth handles poorly.

desk verdict A genuinely useful and honest review; the central claim holds within the scoped examples, and the melt-stability caveat is acknowledged by the authors themselves. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.15032 v1 pith:SUB3ZM5C submitted 2026-07-16 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.supr-con

Jiaqiang Yan , Brenden Ortiz This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-elcond-mat.supr-con
keywords liquidtransportgrowthfluxsinglecrystalsquantummaterialstemperaturegradientnonstoichiometrydefectcontrolcrystalyield
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 review argues that liquid transport growth (LTG) — a horizontal flux-growth method in which a molten flux carries dissolved charge from a hot source region to a colder crystallization region under a deliberate temperature gradient — is a broadly useful complement to conventional vertical flux growth. The central claim is that LTG is especially effective for two classes of materials: compounds that crystallize only within a narrow temperature and/or composition window, and compounds whose stoichiometry, defect concentration, and physical properties are sensitive to the crystallization temperature. Because crystallization proceeds at a nearly constant temperature, LTG avoids the continuously changing phase equilibrium and defect chemistry that cooling an entire melt imposes. The paper supports this with examples including Fe3Sn2, CrTe3, YFe2Ge2, UTe2, CeRh2As2, MoTe2, WTe2, and LuNb6Sn6, showing larger yields, larger crystals, and improved crystal quality compared with vertical flux growth.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is continuous solute transport through a molten flux: the charge sits at the hot end, dissolves, and the dissolved species are carried by diffusion and convection to the cold end, where lower equilibrium solubility creates supersaturation and drives crystal growth. This mechanism yields three design features: spatial separation of dissolution and crystallization, independent temperature control of the two zones, and nearly constant crystallization temperature. Success depends on a dynamic balance among charge dissolution, mass transport through the melt, and crystal precipitation; if dissolution outpaces transport, the melt can de-wet into droplets and terminate gr

What would settle it

Perform an LTG run with a fast-dissolving charge (e.g., fine Mo powder in Te) and a slow-dissolving charge (Mo shots) under identical temperature profiles; the paper predicts the powder run will de-wet into droplets and yield few crystals, while the shots run grows MoTe2. Alternatively, use X-ray radiography during growth to track the melt and solute distribution: the melt should remain continuous and the concentration gradient steady if the transport assumption holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that LTG's three design features — spatial separation of charge dissolution and crystal precipitation, independent temperatures for dissolution and crystallization, and crystallization at a nearly constant temperature — translate into concrete advantages over conventional vertical flux growth. Undissolved charge at the hot end continuously feeds the melt, so yield is no longer capped by the equilibrium solubility of the charge in the flux. The cold-end temperature, not the starting composition, selects the crystallizing phase, which relaxes constraints for compounds with narrow stability windows. And because crystallization temperature stays nearly fixed, grown crystals

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the assumption that the molten flux can keep transporting dissolved charge from the hot end to the cold end faster than the charge dissolves, for the entire growth; if dissolution outpaces transport, the flux de-wets into droplets and growth stops.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LTG can produce gram-scale yields and centimeter-size crystals, enabling bulk measurements such as neutron scattering that require large sample volumes.
  • For temperature-sensitive compounds like YFe2Ge2, UTe2, and CeRh2As2, LTG yields crystals with higher residual resistivity ratios and sharper thermodynamic transitions, indicative of lower disorder and more uniform stoichiometry.
  • In MoTe2 and WTe2, LTG reduced defect densities by roughly two orders of magnitude, which the authors credit with enabling observation of a dissipationless fractional Chern insulator in twisted MoTe2 devices.
  • For phases with narrow stability windows such as Fe3Sn2 and CrTe3, phase selection is controlled primarily by the cold-end temperature, reducing the need for precise starting-composition control.
  • LTG is complementary, not universal; growth fails when the dynamic balance among dissolution, transport, and precipitation is broken, as seen in i-Sc12Zn88 and 2H-MoTe2 test growths.
  • Larger individual crystals can be obtained under favorable kinetics, as demonstrated by LuNb6Sn6, suggesting that controlling solute supply rate can tune nucleation density and crystal size.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If constant-temperature crystallization is the key to defect suppression, then other solution-growth configurations that achieve a fixed growth temperature with continuous solute feeding — such as a source rod feeding a seed held at constant temperature — should show similar quality gains; this is a testable generalization the paper does not pursue.
  • The neck/dumbbell ampoule results hint that suppressing convective circulation may be a general, geometry-controlled lever for lowering defect densities; systematically varying neck length and diameter while measuring crystal quality would provide a direct test.
  • The review's call for in situ and time-resolved diagnostics could be realized with X-ray radiography or neutron imaging of the melt during growth; such measurements would replace the empirical 2–4 week trial-and-error with a quantitative transport model.
  • Because LTG decouples dissolution and crystallization temperatures, it may enable doping profiles or metastable phases that are inaccessible when the whole melt is cooled; the paper notes this possibility for temperature-sensitive dopant distribution coefficients.
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

0 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper reviews liquid transport growth (LTG), a horizontal flux-growth technique in which the charge dissolves at the hot end of an ampoule and solute is transported through a molten flux to a colder crystallization region under a deliberately imposed temperature gradient. The authors identify three design principles—spatial separation of dissolution and crystallization, independent control of the two temperatures, and crystallization at a nearly constant temperature—and argue that these make LTG particularly useful for two classes of systems: compounds that form only in a narrow temperature/composition window, and compounds whose stoichiometry, defect concentration, and physical properties are sensitive to the crystallization temperature. Evidence is drawn both from the published literature (Fe3Sn2, YFe2Ge2, UTe2, CeRh2As2, MoTe2, WTe2, LuNb6Sn6) and from new growths reported in this manuscript, including CrTe3 from Te flux and dumbbell-shaped ampoule variants. The final sections give practical guidance on furnace choice, melt stability, growth time, and ampoule geometry, and outline open questions for making LTG more predictive.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper provides a valuable synthesis of an emerging growth technique and offers concrete guidance for when LTG should be preferred over conventional vertical flux growth. The review's strengths include a clear comparative taxonomy (Table I), multiple examples from independent groups, detailed practical recipes, and an unusually candid treatment of failures (i-Sc12Zn88, 2H-MoTe2) and of unresolved mechanistic questions. The authors explicitly acknowledge that the coupled kinetics of dissolution, transport, and precipitation are not quantitatively understood and that the microscopic origin of improved crystal quality in MoTe2, WTe2, and LuNb6Sn6 remains to be clarified. This scoping is appropriate for a review and is a strength rather than a defect. The reader's concern about sustained melt transport is addressed in the manuscript: the authors state that continuous transport is required, document failures when that balance breaks down, and limit the central claims accordingly. No fundamental circularity or internal inconsistency was found. The main weaknesses are presentation-level—some new experimental results are only qualitatively described, and th

minor comments (8)
  1. [Introduction] Typo: 'doen’t deliberately separate' should be 'doesn’t deliberately separate.' Also, in the Fe3Sn2 section, 'growth ampule' should be 'growth ampoule.'
  2. [Figure 3 caption and Figure 7 caption] Panel labels are inconsistent: Figure 3 caption lists '(3) A sealed ampoule' and Figure 7 caption similarly uses '(3) A sealed ampoule ready for the growth.' These should be '(c)' to match the other subpanels.
  3. [The case of CeRh2As2] The text states that CeRh2As2 was grown out of Bi flux, but the caption to Figure 6 says 'out of Sn flux.' This is a factual inconsistency that must be corrected; the text description (Bi flux) appears to be the correct one based on the cited work [17].
  4. [The case of LuNb6Sn6] Typo: 'molar ration' should be 'molar ratio.' Also in Table I, 'resulting its physical properties' is ungrammatical; consider 'and thus its physical properties.'
  5. [Summary and outlook] Grammar: 'These information are particularly important' should be 'This information is particularly important.'
  6. [Experimental considerations: Furnace selection] The new comparison of MoTe2 growth in single-zone vs. two-zone furnaces is reported as showing 'no significant difference,' but no quantitative data or characterization are shown. If this is meant as a new result, please provide supporting data or clearly label it as a preliminary qualitative observation.
  7. [The case of CrTe3] The new Te-flux LTG of CrTe3 is presented as a demonstration of the narrow-window advantage, but only optical photographs are shown. Since the published characterization of CrTe3 [20] was performed on crystals from KCl-AlCl3 flux, please provide at least basic verification (e.g., powder XRD or magnetic susceptibility) for the Te-flux-grown crystals, or explicitly state that the Te-flux growth is preliminary and phase identity was not independently confirmed.
  8. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract claims that LTG is 'particularly effective' for the two classes of materials without mentioning the necessary condition that the dissolution-transport-precipitation balance be maintained. Because failures are documented later in the paper, consider adding a short qualifier in the abstract or introduction, e.g., 'when the molten flux can continuously transport the dissolved charge,' to keep the central claim consistent with the body of the review.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: a review whose claims rest on independent primary examples and explicit scoping; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a review, not a derivation. The central claim—that LTG is particularly useful for narrow-window and temperature-sensitive materials—is supported by cross-laboratory examples (Chareev salt-flux work, Aoki UTe2, Chen YFe2Ge2, Chajewski CeRh2As2, Park MoTe2, Delgado WTe2), not by a fitted/predicted loop. The paper nowhere fits a parameter and then predicts a closely related quantity; there are no equations whose output equals an input by construction. The authors' own Refs [13–15] introduce the LTG concept and some examples, but the review explicitly frames LTG as analogous to CVT and credits earlier halide-flux work ([9–12]); those self-citations are not used as a uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternatives. The main load-bearing premise, sustained melt transport, is asserted as a requirement rather than derived, and the paper candidly documents failures (i-Sc12Zn88, 2H-MoTe2) and states that 'A quantitative understanding of these coupled processes remains lacking.' That is a scoping limitation, not circularity. The score of 1 reflects only the presence of a few non-load-bearing self-citations in an otherwise externally benchmarked review.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities; it relies on standard solution-growth assumptions, published phase diagrams, and previously reported crystal-growth results.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Fe–Sn and Cr–Te binary phase diagrams (Ref. [40]) correctly capture the narrow stability windows used to design the growths.
    The strategy of cold-end phase selection depends on the accuracy of published phase diagrams for Fe-Sn and Cr-Te.
  • domain assumption A steady temperature gradient along the ampoule produces a solubility gradient that drives dissolution at the hot end and supersaturation at the cold end.
    The entire LTG mechanism relies on this basic solution-growth principle, invoked throughout Sections 'Introduction' and 'Narrow temperature...'.
  • domain assumption Solute transport through the molten flux (by diffusion and/or convection) is sufficient to sustain crystallization over weeks.
    The paper acknowledges this is a dynamic balance that can break down (Melt stability section). If transport is too slow, growth fails, as noted for MnBi.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Recent progress on liquid transport growth of quantum materials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SUB3ZM5C

@misc{pith2026260715032,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Recent progress on liquid transport growth of quantum materials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SUB3ZM5C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15032}
}
abstract

Liquid transport growth (LTG) is a horizontal flux growth technique that is closely analogous to chemical vapor transport, with the key distinction that a molten flux rather than a vapor serves as the transport agent. Unlike conventional flux growth, LTG spatially separates charge dissolution and crystal precipitation and couples them through continuous solute transport under a deliberately imposed temperature gradient. This enables crystal growth to begin before the charge is completely dissolved, removes the equilibrium solubility constraint on the starting charge/flux ratio, and allows large yields of single crystals to be obtained from a single growth. Recent studies have further shown that by spatially separating dissolution and crystallization and maintaining crystallization at a nearly constant temperature, LTG is particularly effective for two classes of materials: compounds that crystallize only within a narrow temperature and/or composition window, and compounds whose stoichiometry, defect concentration, and thus physical properties are sensitive to the crystallization temperature. In this review, we discuss representative examples including Fe$_3$Sn$_2$, CrTe$_3$, YFe$_2$Ge$_2$, UTe$_2$, CeRh$_2$As$_2$, MoTe$_2$, WTe$_2$, and LuNb$_6$Sn$_6$ to illustrate the unique capabilities of LTG for producing high quality single crystals of diverse quantum materials. We also summarize practical considerations for LTG experimental design, including furnace selection, growth time, melt stability, and ampoule geometry, and discuss future opportunities for transforming LTG from an empirical growth method into a more predictive crystal growth technique.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15032 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (color online) Schematic comparison of chemical vapor transport (CVT), liquid transport growth (LTG), and con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (color online) Liquid transport growth of Fe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (color online) Liquid transport growth of CrTe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (color online) Single crystal growth of YFe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (color online) Single crystal growth of UTe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (color online) Liquid transport growth of CeRh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (color online) Dumbbell shaped quartz ampoule de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    P. C. Canfield and Z. Fisk, Growth of single crystals from metallic fluxes, Philosophical Magazine B 65, 1117 (1992)

    1992

  2. [2]

    P. C. Canfield and I. R. Fisher, High-temperature solu- tion growth of intermetallic single crystals and quasicrys- tals, Journal of Crystal Growth 225, 155 (2001)

    2001

  3. [3]

    Fisk and J

    Z. Fisk and J. Remeika, Growth of single crystals from molten metal fluxes, Handbook on the Physics and Chemistry of Rare Earths 12, 53 (1989)

    1989

  4. [4]

    M. G. Kanatzidis, R. P¨ ottgen, and W. Jeitschko, The metal flux: A preparative tool for the exploration of inter- metallic compounds, Angewandte Chemie International Edition 44, 6996 (2005)

    2005

  5. [5]

    B. M. Wanklyn, Flux growth of some complex oxide ma- terials, Journal of Materials Science 7, 813 (1972)

    1972

  6. [6]

    D. E. Bugaris and H.-C. zur Loye, Materials discovery by flux crystal growth: Quaternary and higher order ox- ides, Angewandte Chemie International Edition 51, 3780 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    H. J. Scheel, The present status of flux growth, Journal of Crystal Growth 65, 533 (1983)

    1983

  8. [8]

    W. A. Phelan, M. C. Menard, M. J. Kangas, G. T. Mc- Candless, B. L. Drake, and J. Y. Chan, Adventures in crystal growth: synthesis and characterization of single crystals of complex intermetallic compounds, Chemistry of Materials 24, 409 (2012)

    2012

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    S. G. Parker and J. E. Pinnell, Molten flux growth of cubic zinc sulfide crystals, Journal of Crystal Growth 3– 4, 490 (1968)

    1968

  2. [10]

    S. G. Parker and J. E. Pinnell, Flux growth of cubic cucl crystal using a small thermal gradient, Journal of the Electrochemical Society 117, 107 (1970)

    1970

  3. [11]

    Chareev, E

    D. Chareev, E. Osadchii, T. Kuzmicheva, J.-Y. Lin, S. Kuzmichev, O. Volkova, and A. Vasiliev, Single crys- tal growth and characterization of tetragonal fese 1- x superconductors, CrystEngComm 15, 1989 (2013)

    1989

  4. [12]

    Chareev, General principles of the synthesis of chalco- genides and pnictides in salt melts using a steady-state temperature gradient, Crystallography Reports 61, 506 (2016)

    D. Chareev, General principles of the synthesis of chalco- genides and pnictides in salt melts using a steady-state temperature gradient, Crystallography Reports 61, 506 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    J.-Q. Yan, B. C. Sales, M. A. Susner, and M. A. Mcguire, Flux growth in a horizontal configuration: an analog to vapor transport growth, Phys. Rev. Mater. 1, 023402 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Wang, P.-k

    B. Wang, P.-k. Wu, N. Baguees Salguero, Q. Zheng, J. Yan, M. Randeria, and D. W. McComb, Stimulated nucleation of skyrmions in a centrosymmetric magnet, ACS nano 15, 13495 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    H. Park, W. Li, C. Hu, C. Beach, M. Goncalves, J. F. Mendez-Valderrama, J. Herzog-Arbeitman, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, D. Cobden, L. Fu, B. A. Bernevig, N. Regnault, J.-H. Chu, D. Xiao, and X. Xu, Observation of dissipationless fractional chern insulator, Nature Physics 22, 3...

    2026

  8. [16]

    Delgado, E

    G. Delgado, E. Runburg, C. Hu, Y. Zhao, J. M. DeSte- fano, K. T. Chu, F. Mesple, E. Thompson, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, et al., Record magnetoresistance, en- hanced superconductivity, and fermiology in wte2, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.23378 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Chajewski, D

    G. Chajewski, D. Szymanski, M. Daszkiewicz, and D. Kaczorowski, Horizontal flux growth as an efficient preparation method of cerh 2 as 2 single crystals, Mate- rials Horizons 11, 855 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Aoki, Molten salt flux liquid transport method for ultra clean single crystals ute2, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 93, 043703 (2024)

    D. Aoki, Molten salt flux liquid transport method for ultra clean single crystals ute2, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 93, 043703 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    J. Chen, M. B. Gamza, J. Banda, K. Murphy, J. Tarrant, M. Brando, and F. M. Grosche, Unconventional bulk su- perconductivity in yfe 2 ge 2 single crystals, Physical Re- view Letters 125, 237002 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    M. A. McGuire, V. O. Garlea, S. KC, V. R. Cooper, J. Yan, H. Cao, and B. C. Sales, Antiferromagnetism in the van der waals layered spin-lozenge semiconductor crte 3, Physical Review B 95, 144421 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    M. A. McGuire, Q. Zheng, J. Yan, and B. C. Sales, Chem- ical disorder and spin-liquid-like magnetism in the van der waals layered 5 d transition metal halide os 0.55 cl 2, Physical Review B 99, 214402 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Chareev, O

    D. Chareev, O. Volkova, N. Geringer, A. Koshelev, A. Nekrasov, V. Osadchii, E. Osadchii, and O. Fil- imonova, Synthesis of chalcogenide and pnictide crystals in salt melts using a steady-state temperature gradient, Crystallography reports 61, 682 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    D. A. Chareev, V. O. Osadchii, A. A. Shiryaev, A. N. Nekrasov, A. V. Koshelev, and E. G. Osadchii, Single- crystal fe-bearing sphalerite: synthesis, lattice param- eter, thermal expansion coefficient and microhardness, Physics and Chemistry of Minerals 44, 287 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Chareev, Y

    D. Chareev, Y. Ovchenkov, L. Shvanskaya, A. Koval- skii, M. Abdel-Hafiez, D. J. Trainer, E. M. Lechner, M. Iavarone, O. Volkova, and A. Vasiliev, Single crys- tal growth, transport and scanning tunneling microscopy and spectroscopy of fese 1- x s x, CrystEngComm 20, 2449 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    H. Sun, L. Qiu, Y. Han, E. Yi, J. Li, M. Huo, C. Huang, H. Liu, M. Li, W. Wang,et al., Coexistence of zigzag anti- ferromagnetic order and superconductivity in compressed nipse3, Materials Today Physics 36, 101188 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    M. Ma, B. Ruan, M. Zhou, Y. Gu, Q. Dong, Q. Yang, Q. Wang, L. Chen, Y. Shi, J. Yi, et al., Growth of millimeter-sized high-quality cufese2 single crystals by the molten salt method and study of their semiconduct- ing behavior, Journal of Crystal Growth 622, 127398 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Q. Wang, M. Ma, B. Ruan, M. Zhou, Y. Gu, Q. Yang, L. Chen, Y. Shi, J. Yi, G. Chen, et al., Structural and resistivity properties of fe1-xcoxse single crystals grown by the molten salt method, Journal of Crystal Growth , 127633 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Ruixian, N

    L. Ruixian, N. Mitsutaka, K. Kazuya, and L. Xingye, Low-energy spin excitations in detwinned fese, Chinese Physics Letters 41, 67401 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Kothakonda, Y

    M. Kothakonda, Y. Zhu, Y. Guan, J. He, J. Kidd, R. Zhang, J. Ning, V. Gopalan, W. Xie, Z. Mao, et al., High-throughput screening assisted discovery of a stable layered anti-ferromagnetic semiconductor: Cdfep2se6, Advanced Functional Materials 33, 2210965 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    P. Zhu, Y. Li, X. Yang, Y. Yang, X. Zhang, X. Lin, F. Yang, X. Li, and Z. Wang, Synthesis of superconduct- ing in x sn1- x te (0.04¡ x¡ 0.1) large single crystal by liquid transport method, Crystals 11, 474 (2021). 16

    2021

  23. [31]

    Mandal, C

    M. Mandal, C. Patra, A. Kataria, S. Paul, S. Saha, and R. Singh, Superconductivity in doped weyl semimetal mo0. 9ir0. 1te2 with broken inversion symmetry, Super- conductor Science and Technology 35, 025011 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    F. A. Cevallos, S. Guo, H. Heo, G. Scuri, Y. Zhou, J. Sung, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, P. Kim, H. Park, et al., Liquid salt transport growth of single crystals of the layered dichalcogenides mos2 and ws2, Crystal Growth & Design 19, 5762 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    J. Xing, L. D. Sanjeewa, A. F. May, and A. S. Sefat, Synthesis and anisotropic magnetism in quantum spin liquid candidates aybse2 (a= k and rb), APL Materials 9 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Stilkerich, T

    N. Stilkerich, T. Ritschel, H. M. Noad, R. Waite, D. Khalyavin, K. Ishida, P. Manuel, F. Orlandi, S. Khim, E. Gati, et al., Uniaxial-stress-induced magnetic tran- sitions in the triangular-lattice antiferromagnet pdcro2, Reports on Progress in Physics 89, 068007 (2026)

    2026

  27. [35]

    D. A. Chareev, V. O. Zyabchenkov, S. A. Badmaeva, and A. N. Nekrasov, Synthesis of crystals of ultimate sulfides in sulfur melt in a stationary temperature gradient, Crys- tallography Reports 70, 1047 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Bannies, M

    J. Bannies, M. Michiardi, H.-H. Kung, S. Godin, J. W. Simonson, M. Oudah, M. Zonno, S. Gorovikov, S. Zh- danovich, I. S. Elfimov, A. Damascelli, and M. C. Aron- son, Electronic switching of topology in LaSbTe, Nature Materials 25, 427 (2026)

    2026

  29. [37]

    J. Wang, X. Liu, C. Pei, Y. Qi, J. gang Guo, and T. Ying, Size-effect enriched phase diagram in p-type skutterudite superconductor Ir 3.8Sb12, Inorganic Chemistry 64, 2276 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Nakamura, A

    N. Nakamura, A. Yanuma, Y. Chiba, R. Omura, R. Hi- gashinaka, H. Harima, Y. Aoki, and T. D. Matsuda, Fermi surface and superconducting properties of α-irsn4, α-rhsn4, irge4, and rhge4 with trigonal chiral structure, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 92, 034701 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Manago, G

    M. Manago, G. Motoyama, S. Nishigori, K. Fujiwara, K. Kinjo, S. Kitagawa, K. Ishida, K. Akiba, S. Araki, T. C. Kobayashi, et al., Site split of antiferromagnetic α- mn revealed by 55mn nuclear magnetic resonance, jour- nal of the physical society of japan 91, 113701 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Okamoto, Asm alloy phase diagrams database, http: //www.asminternational.org (2016)

    H. Okamoto, Asm alloy phase diagrams database, http: //www.asminternational.org (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    P. C. Canfield, T. Kong, U. S. Kaluarachchi, and N. H. Jo, Use of frit-disc crucibles for routine and exploratory solution growth of single crystalline samples, Philosoph- ical magazine 96, 84 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    B. C. Sales, J. Yan, W. R. Meier, A. D. Christianson, S. Okamoto, and M. A. McGuire, Electronic, magnetic, and thermodynamic properties of the kagome layer com- pound fesn, Physical Review Materials 3, 114203 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Huang, T

    L. Huang, T. M. McCormick, M. Ochi, Z. Zhao, M. Suzuki, R. Arita, Y. Wu, D. Mou, H. Cao, J. Yan, et al., Spectroscopic evidence for a type ii weyl semimetallic state in mote2, Nature materials 15, 1155 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Y. Zou, Z. Feng, P. Logg, J. Chen, G. Lampronti, and F. Grosche, Fermi liquid breakdown and evidence for su- perconductivity in yfe2ge2, physica status solidi (RRL)– Rapid Research Letters 8, 928 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    J. Chen, M. B. Gamza, K. Semeniuk, and F. M. Grosche, Composition dependence of bulk superconductivity in yfe 2 ge 2, Physical Review B 99, 020501 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    S. Ran, C. Eckberg, Q.-P. Ding, Y. Furukawa, T. Metz, S. R. Saha, I.-L. Liu, M. Zic, H. Kim, J. Paglione, et al., Nearly ferromagnetic spin-triplet superconductivity, Sci- ence 365, 684 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    D. Aoki, A. Nakamura, F. Honda, D. Li, Y. Homma, Y. Shimizu, Y. J. Sato, G. Knebel, J.-P. Brison, A. Pour- ret, et al., Unconventional superconductivity in heavy fermion ute2, journal of the physical society of japan 88, 043702 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    B. R. Ortiz, W. R. Meier, G. Pokharel, J. Chamorro, F. Yang, S. Mozaffari, A. Thaler, S. J. G. Alvarado, H. Zhang, D. S. Parker, G. D. Samolyuk, J. A. M. Pad- dison, J. Yan, F. Ye, S. Sarker, S. D. Wilson, H. Miao, D. Mandrus, and M. A. McGuire, Stability frontiers in the AM 6...

    2025

  41. [49]

    R. E. Johnson and S. G. Parker, Process of growing cubic zinc sulfide crystals in a molten salt solvent (1968)

    1968

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.