The effect of Carrier Doping and Thickness on the Electronic Structures of La$3$Ni$2$O$7$ Thin Films

Dao-Xin Yao; Defang Duan; Guanlin Li; Haoliang Shi; Hao Ma; Tian Cui; Zihao Huo

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The effect of Carrier Doping and Thickness on the Electronic Structures of La$3$Ni$2$O$7$ Thin Films

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

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

Pith's one-line read For a two-unit-cell La3Ni2O7 film, doping with 0.3 holes per formula unit makes the Ni-dz2 interlayer bonding state cross the Fermi level and form gamma pockets, matching ARPES measurements on superconducting films.

desk verdict A useful but over-sold DFT parameter scan: the 0.3-hole/f.u. 2UC result is plausible, but the abstract/body inconsistency and missing doping implementation make the headline quantitative claim hard to pin down. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04255 v2 pith:TPUFOV4G submitted 2025-02-06 cond-mat.supr-con

Haoliang Shi , Zihao Huo , Guanlin Li , Hao Ma , Tian Cui , Dao-Xin Yao , Defang Duan This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.supr-con PACS 31.15.Ew68.55.Ln74.25.Jb74.78.Fk

keywords La3Ni2O7nickelatesuperconductorsdensityfunctionaltheorythinfilmscarrierdopingFermisurfaceNi-dz2orbitalgammapockets

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 asks whether film thickness and carrier doping alone can explain the electronic structure of La3Ni2O7 thin films that superconduct at ambient pressure. Using DFT+U calculations on slabs between 0.5 and 3 unit cells thick, it claims that for a two-unit-cell film, adding 0.3 holes per formula unit pushes the Ni-$d_{z^2}$ interlayer bonding band upward so it crosses the Fermi level and creates a hole-type $\gamma$ pocket near the M point. The calculated Fermi surface for this 2 UC, 0.3 hole/f.u. case matches the size and topology of ARPES data on the superconducting films. The paper concludes that the appearance of the $\gamma$ pocket, and with it the electronic structure linked to superconductivity in the bulk high-pressure phase, is controlled by the joint tuning of thickness and hole doping.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Ni-$d_{z^2}$ interlayer bonding state, computed in slab supercells with a 20 Å vacuum layer using DFT+U with $U=3.5$ eV on Ni. Doping is implemented rigidly as a change in the number of holes per formula unit, with a uniform compensating background, and the key observable is whether that band crosses $E_F$ at the M point. Thickness enters through surface reconstruction and the inequivalence of inner versus outer Ni-O bond lengths, which splits the contributions of different bilayers; doping enters by shifting the $d_{z^2}$ band upward. The match to ARPES is the argument that this rigid-doping, relaxed-slab machinery captures the physics of ozone annealing and interfacial Sr diffusion in real films.

What would settle it

If angle-resolved photoemission on a two-unit-cell La3Ni2O7 film at the doping level where superconductivity appears showed no hole-like pocket around the M point, or showed a pocket of clearly different size at the same thickness and doping, the central match would fail. A more direct check is a DFT calculation that models Sr substitution at the La/Sr interface explicitly; if that calculation gives a Fermi surface without a $\gamma$ pocket at the doping where ARPES sees one, then the rigid-doping assumption is the weak link.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in a two-unit-cell La3Ni2O7 thin film with tetragonal symmetry, a hole doping of 0.3 per formula unit induces a Lifshitz transition: the Ni-$d_{z^2}$ interlayer bonding state rises across $E_F$ at the M point, forming a $\gamma$ pocket that is larger than the one calculated for bulk La3Ni2O7 at 20 GPa but comparable in size and topological character to the $\gamma$ pocket observed by ARPES in the superconducting La2.85Pr0.15Ni2O7 films. The same crossing also occurs for 1 and 3 UC films at slightly higher optimal doping (0.3-0.4 hole/f.u.), while the 0.5 UC film behaves differently because of strong surface reconstruction. The paper further reports that the Fermi-level-crossing $d_{z^2}$ band is dominated by the bilayer adjacent to the vacuum (the surface-proximal, effectively interfacial bilayer), so the calculated conduction is concentrated in that layer. These results are offered as the theoretical explanation for why ambient-pressure superconductivity appears specifically in doped thin films of La3Ni2O7.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation treats doping as adding a fixed number of holes per formula unit uniformly to the slab, whereas in the real films hole doping comes from ozone annealing and strontium diffusion at the interface and may be inhomogeneous or tied to structural distortions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For films 1-3 unit cells thick, hole doping in the 0.3-0.4 holes per formula unit window raises the Ni-$d_{z^2}$ bonding band across the Fermi level, so the $\gamma$ pocket is a generic thin-film feature, not an accident of the 2 UC case.
The 2 UC, 0.3 hole/f.u. Fermi surface reproduces the ARPES-measured $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ pockets, giving a concrete electronic-structure model for interpreting transport and pairing in the superconducting films.
The Ni-$d_{z^2}$ DOS at the Fermi level in the doped 2 UC film (2.20 states eV$^{-1}$ f.u.$^{-1}$) is close to the bulk I4/mmm phase at 30 GPa, so the thin film recreates the bulk high-pressure electronic condition at ambient pressure.
Because the Fermi-level-crossing band is dominated by the surface-proximal bilayer, the calculations imply conduction and superconductivity are concentrated in the interfacial layer of the film.

Reading between the lines

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

If the rigid-doping picture is correct, the same $\gamma$-pocket condition could be achieved in other geometries by strain or chemical pressure rather than by ozone annealing, since thickness only changes which doping window (0.3-0.4 hole/f.u.) is optimal.
The interfacial-bilayer localization suggests the choice of substrate is a control knob: a substrate that places the active bilayer differently, or that transfers a different amount of charge, would shift the optimal film thickness for superconductivity.
A natural extension is to compute pairing susceptibilities or superconducting $T_c$ for the 2 UC, 0.3 hole/f.u. structure; the present paper establishes the Fermi-surface topology but does not derive superconductivity itself.
Treating the LaSrAlO4 substrate explicitly, with Sr substitution and charge transfer, would test whether the uniform rigid-doping level of 0.3 hole/f.u. corresponds to the real interfacial doping in the measured samples.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The useful thing here is the systematic map: film thickness from 0.5 to 3 UC against doping from 0.2 e/f.u. to 1.0 h/f.u., with the Ni-dz2 DOS and Fermi-surface topology laid out in a way that experimentalists can actually use. The structural relaxation trends (surface bilayers reconstruct, inner Ni-O bonds stay short) are sensible, and the note added honestly lists concurrent studies. If you work on nickelate thin films, this is a handy reference scan.

The main soft spot is not the physics but the report of it. The abstract says the optimal doping for the 2UC film is 0.4 holes/f.u.; the body and conclusions say 0.3. That is a real inconsistency, and it matters because the whole quantitative claim rests on which concentration produces the gamma pockets. The doping implementation in VASP is also never stated. The paper says doping levels were 'systematically investigated,' but not whether that means a uniform background charge, a charged supercell, or something else. In a slab with 20 Å of vacuum, the usual choice is a uniform background, and that model is not obviously equivalent to ozone annealing plus Sr interdiffusion. The central match to ARPES could be a model artifact of where the compensating charge sits. The authors also select the doping to reproduce the measured pockets, so the agreement is partly fitting, not prediction. There are no input files or convergence tests to check any of this.

That said, the qualitative picture—hole doping raises the dz2 band, thickness changes the pocket topology, 2UC at moderate hole doping looks like the bulk high-pressure state—is plausible and broadly consistent with the ARPES data. The paper does not invent new physics, but it does deliver a coherent thickness-doping phase map that is currently missing from the literature.

Who gets value: experimentalists in the nickelate thin-film chase, theorists wanting a quick reference for band-structure trends. Deserves a serious referee because the system is hot and the map is useful, but the referee should insist on stating the doping model, fixing the 0.3/0.4 discrepancy, and providing at least one representative input file or convergence curve. As is, I would not cite the quantitative doping value, only the qualitative trend.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports DFT+U (PBE, U=3.5 eV on Ni) calculations of La3Ni2O7 thin films with thicknesses from 0.5 to 3 unit cells, with carrier doping varied from 0.2 electrons to 1.0 hole per formula unit. The central claim is that for a 2UC film at 0.3 holes per formula unit the Ni-dz2 interlayer bonding state crosses the Fermi level and produces gamma pockets at the Fermi surface whose size and topology agree with ARPES measurements of strained La3Ni2O7 films. The authors also present a thickness-doping map of the Ni-dz2 density of states at the Fermi level and argue that hole doping and film thickness jointly control the Fermi-surface topology, with the interfacial bilayer playing the dominant role. The abstract, however, states the optimal doping as 0.4 holes per formula unit, whereas the main text and conclusions use 0.3 holes per formula unit.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides a concrete theoretical mechanism for the experimentally observed ambient-pressure superconductivity in strained La3Ni2O7 thin films: hole doping moves the Ni-dz2 interlayer bonding band through a Lifshitz transition, reproducing the electronic structure of the high-pressure bulk phase. The systematic thickness-doping phase diagram would be a useful reference for future experiments, and the DFT+U setup is standard and reproducible in principle. However, the significance is tempered by the fact that the optimal doping value is not predicted from first principles but selected to match the ARPES gamma pockets, so the reported 'agreement' is partly a fit rather than an independent confirmation.

major comments (4)

[Section 2] The computational implementation of carrier doping is not specified. Section 2 states only that 'doping levels ranging from 0.2 electrons to 1 hole per formula unit were systematically investigated' without saying how the charge was added in VASP, whether a charged supercell with a uniform compensating background was used, how the number of electrons was set, or whether the atomic positions were relaxed in the doped charged state. This omission is load-bearing because the central 2UC result at 0.3 holes per formula unit depends on the precise way the hole doping is modeled.
[Abstract and Section 3] The paper reports two different optimal doping values for the 2UC film: the abstract says 0.4 holes per formula unit, while the main text, figure captions, and conclusions use 0.3 holes per formula unit. Because the claim is a quantitative match to ARPES, the exact calculation being compared is not uniquely identified, and the reader cannot determine whether the 0.3 value or the 0.4 value is the one that reproduces the gamma pockets.
[Section 2 and Section 3] If the doping is implemented as a charged slab with a uniform background charge, the model is not equivalent to the physical hole doping in the real films, which the introduction attributes to ozone annealing and Sr interdiffusion. These physical mechanisms are likely inhomogeneous and concentrated near the interface, and they may be coupled to structural distortions and chemical substitution. The paper does not test whether a uniform background charge gives the same band shifts as a more realistic interface doping model, so the gamma-pocket match at 0.3 holes per formula unit could be an artifact of the jellium-like background rather than a robust prediction.
[Section 3] The optimal doping concentration is effectively fitted to the ARPES data. The text states that the 0.3 hole/f.u. case 'aligns most closely with ARPES experimental results' after presenting Fermi surfaces for several thicknesses and doping levels. Because the doping value is chosen to reproduce the measured gamma pockets, the subsequent statement that the calculation is 'in good agreement' with experiment is not an independent validation of the doping model; the paper should explicitly acknowledge this circularity and present the calculation as a constrained reproduction of the data rather than a prediction.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract] The abstract should be corrected to use the same doping value as the main text; currently it reports 0.4 holes per formula unit while the body and conclusions report 0.3 holes per formula unit.
[Section 3, Fig. 3] The text says 'the Fermi surface of the 2UC film doped with 0.3 hole/f.u. (0.15 hole/Ni) (Fig. 3e) is in good agreement with the ARPES measurements', but Fig. 3e corresponds to the 1UC film and Fig. 3f corresponds to the 2UC film; the figure reference should be corrected.
[Throughout] The orthorhombic phase is repeatedly referred to as 'orthogonal'; the conventional term is 'orthorhombic'.
[References] Reference [34] contains a formatting artifact ('and B. H., arXiv preprint') and should be completed; several other entries mix arXiv and journal information and should be harmonized.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 2UC Fermi-surface match is obtained by scanning doping and selecting the value that reproduces ARPES, so the quantitative agreement is partly by construction; the underlying DFT band-structure content remains independent.

fitted input called prediction [Section 3, discussion around Fig. 4 and Fig. 3(f): 'Since the case of 0.3 hole/f.u.]
"Since the case of 0.3 hole/f.u. doping aligns most closely with ARPES experimental results, we compared the electronic structures with varying thicknesses under both undoped and 0.3 hole-doped conditions. ... the Fermi surface of the 2UC film doped with 0.3 hole/f.u. (0.15 hole/Ni) (Fig. 3e) is in good agreement with the ARPES measurements [35], sharing comparable sizes and topological features."

The doping level is a free parameter scanned over a range (0.2 electrons/f.u. to 1.0 hole/f.u.), and the value 0.3 hole/f.u. is selected specifically because it produces the ARPES-observed gamma pockets. The resulting 'agreement' is therefore an outcome of parameter selection rather than an independent prediction. The 'optimal doping concentration' is operationally defined by matching the experimental Fermi surface, and the same match is then reported as evidence that the calculation reproduces ARPES. This does not make the underlying DFT bands circular, but the central quantitative agreement at 0.3 hole/f.u. reduces by construction to the choice of doping.

full rationale

The DFT+U calculations themselves are self-contained: band structures, DOS, and Fermi surfaces are computed from stated structural models with U=3.5 eV, and the thickness trends (0.5UC vs 1-3UC) are genuine outputs. The referenced prior work by the same group [31] is used only for a DOS comparison, not as the source of the central Fermi-surface result, so it is not load-bearing. However, the paper's headline agreement with ARPES is compromised by selection: Section 2 says doping levels from 0.2 e/f.u. to 1 hole/f.u. were 'systematically investigated', and Section 3 states that 0.3 hole/f.u. 'aligns most closely with ARPES experimental results'. The calculation does not predict the doping concentration; it chooses the concentration that reproduces the measured gamma pockets and then reports the match as validation. This is a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern, giving partial circularity. In addition, the abstract reports 0.4 holes/f.u. while the main text and conclusions use 0.3 holes/f.u., and the method of charge doping in VASP is not specified, so the exact model behind the selected concentration is not uniquely identified. These are reproducibility/correctness concerns rather than circularity per se. The central band-structure content is not equivalent to its inputs by definition, so a score of 6 (partial circularity) is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two modeling choices: the DFT+U approximation and the way doping is injected into the slab. The doping concentration that matches ARPES is effectively selected by the data, so it is a fitted parameter rather than an independent prediction. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

Hubbard U on Ni d states = 3.5 eV
Chosen from prior bulk La3Ni2O7 studies [39,40]. Changing U can move the Ni-dz2 band relative to the Fermi level and thus determine whether the gamma pocket appears at a given doping, so the central result depends on this choice.
optimal hole doping for 2UC film = 0.3 hole/f.u. (0.15 hole/Ni)
Selected because it reproduces the ARPES Fermi surface. This is effectively a fitted parameter rather than an independent prediction. The abstract inconsistently quotes 0.4 hole/f.u.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption GGA-PBE with DFT+U accurately captures the relative position of the Ni-dz2 band in La3Ni2O7 thin films
Invoked in Section 2. The central Fermi-surface crossing is sensitive to this approximation and to the U value, and DFT+U is known to be approximate for strongly correlated nickelates.
domain assumption Hole doping can be modeled by adding or removing electrons in the slab calculation with a uniform background
Section 2 states that doping levels from 0.2 electrons to 1 hole per formula unit were investigated, but the implementation is not described. Physical doping comes from ozone annealing and Sr interdiffusion, which may be inhomogeneous and localized near the interface.
domain assumption Fixed experimental in-plane lattice constants reproduce the epitaxial strain from the LSAO substrate
Section 2 constructs slabs from experimental structures with a=b=3.77 angstrom for the tetragonal phase. Any deviation from the actual substrate strain would shift band positions and alter the doping needed to reach the Lifshitz transition.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The effect of Carrier Doping and Thickness on the Electronic Structures of La$3$Ni$2$O$7$ Thin Films." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TPUFOV4G

@misc{pith2026250204255,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The effect of Carrier Doping and Thickness on the Electronic Structures of La$3$Ni$2$O$7$ Thin Films},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TPUFOV4G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04255}
}

read the original abstract

Recently, the superconductivity of bilayer nickelate La3Ni2O7 has been observed in the thin film at ambient pressure, facilitated by epitaxial strain. Here, we investigate the effects of film thickness and carrier doping on the electronic structure of La3Ni2O7 thin films with thickness of 0.5-3 unit cells (UC) using first-principles calculations. At an optimal doping concentration of 0.4 holes per formula unit for 2UC film, the Ni-"d" _("z" ^"2" ) interlayer bonding state metallizes, leading to the formation of {\gamma} pockets at the Fermi surface, which quantitatively matches the experimental results of angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES). These findings provide theoretical support for recent experimental observations of ambient-pressure superconductivity in La3Ni2O7 thin films and highlight the crucial role of film thickness and carrier doping in modulating electronic properties.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Superexchanges and Charge Transfer in the La$_3$Ni$_2$O$_7$ Thin Films
cond-mat.supr-con 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In La3Ni2O7 thin films, the interlayer d3z2-r2 antiferromagnetic coupling is about 27% weaker than in bulk, in-plane coupling is nearly unchanged, and hole/electron doping is particle-hole asymmetric.
Pairing symmetry and superconductivity in La$_3$Ni$_2$O$_7$ thin films
cond-mat.supr-con 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

RMFT on the bilayer two-orbital t-J model predicts s±-wave pairing in La3Ni2O7 thin films, with a nodeless beta pocket and Tc near 60 K, plus an inter-orbital d-wave channel that reinforces the dominant pairing.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

H. Sun, M. Huo, X. Hu, J. Li, Z. Liu, Y. Han, L. Tang, Z. Mao, P. Yang, B. Wang, J. Cheng, D.-X. Yao, G.-M. Zhang and M. Wang, Nature 621 (7979), 493-498 (2023)

work page 2023
[2]

J. Hou, P. Yang, Z. Liu, J. Li, P. Shan, L. Ma, G. Wang, N. Wang, H. Guo, J. Sun, Y. Uwatoko, M. Wang, G. Zhang, B. Wang and J. Cheng, Chin. Phys. Lett. 40 (11), 117302 (2023)

work page 2023
[3]

Zhang, D

Y. Zhang, D. Su, Y. Huang, Z. Shan, H. Sun, M. Huo, K. Ye, J. Zhang, Z. Yang, Y. Xu, Y. Su, R. Li, M. Smidman, M. Wang, L. Jiao and H. Yuan, Nature Physics (2024)

work page 2024
[4]

Y. Zhou, J. Guo, S. Cai, H. Sun, P. Wang, J. Zhao, J. Han, X. Chen, Q. Wu, Y. Ding, M. Wang, T. Xiang, H. Mao and L. Sun, Arxiv preprint arXiv:2311.12361 (2023)

arXiv 2023
[5]

G. Wang, N. N. Wang, X. L. Shen, J. Hou, L. Ma, L. F. Shi, Z. A. Ren, Y. D. Gu, H. M. Ma, P. T. Yang, Z. Y. Liu, H. Z. Guo, J. P. Sun, G. M. Zhang, S. Calder, J. Q. Yan, B. S. Wang, Y. Uwatoko and J. G. Cheng, Physical Review X 14 (1), 011040 (2024)

work page 2024
[6]

L. Wang, Y. Li, S.-Y. Xie, F. Liu, H. Sun, C. Huang, Y. Gao, T. Nakagawa, B. Fu, B. Dong, Z. Cao, R. Yu, S. I. Kawaguchi, H. Kadobayashi, M. Wang, C. Jin, H.-k. Mao and H. Liu, Journal of the American Chemical Society 146 (11), 7506-7514 (2024)

work page 2024
[7]

J. Li, P. Ma, H. Zhang, X. Huang, C. Huang, M. Huo, D. Hu, Z. Dong, C. He, J. Liao, X. Chen, T. Xie, H. Sun and M. Wang, ArXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11369 (2024)

arXiv 2024
[8]

Z. Luo, X. Hu, M. Wang, W. Wú and D.-X. Yao, Physical Review Letters 131 (12), 126001 (2023)

work page 2023

Show all 43 references

[9]

Y. Gu, C. Le, Z. Yang, X. Wu and J. Hu, Arxiv preprint arXiv:2306.07275 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[10]

Q.-G. Yang, D. Wang and Q. -H. Wang, Physical Review B 108 (14), L140505 (2023)

2023
[11]

D. A. Shilenko and I. V. Leonov, Physical Review B 108 (12), 125105 (2023)

2023
[12]

X. Chen, P. Jiang, J. Li, Z. Zhong and Y. Lu, ArXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07154 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[13]

Y.-B. Liu, J. -W. Mei, F. Ye, W. -Q. Chen and F. Yang, Physical Review Letters 131 (23), 236002 (2023)

2023
[14]

Christiansson, F

V. Christiansson, F. Petocchi and P. Werner, Physical Review Letters 131 (20), 206501 (2023)

2023
[15]

Zhang, L

Y. Zhang, L. -F. Lin, A. Moreo and E. Dagotto, Physical Review B 108 (18), L180510 (2023)

2023
[16]

Z. Liao, L. Chen, G. Duan, Y. Wang, C. Liu, R. Yu and Q. Si, Physical Review B 108 (21), 214522 (2023)

2023
[17]

Lechermann, J

F. Lechermann, J. Gondolf, S. Bö tzel and I. M. Eremin, Physical Review B 108 (20), L201121 (2023)

2023
[18]

Y. Shen, M. Qin and G.-M. Zhang, Chinese Physics Letters 40 (12), 127401 (2023)

2023
[19]

Yang, G.-M

Y.-f. Yang, G.-M. Zhang and F.-C. Zhang, Physical Review B 108 (20), L201108 (2023)

2023
[20]

Huang, Z

J. Huang, Z. D. Wang and T. Zhou, Physical Review B 108 (17), 174501 (2023)

2023
[21]

Qin and Y.-f

Q. Qin and Y.-f. Yang, Physical Review B 108 (14), L140504 (2023)

2023
[22]

Z. Luo, B. Lv, M. Wang, W. Wu and D. Yao, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16564 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[23]

C. Lu, Z. Pan, F. Yang and C. Wu, Physical Review Letters 132 (14), 146002 (2024)

2024
[24]

Zhang, L

Y. Zhang, L. -F. Lin, A. Moreo, T. A. Maier and E. Dagotto, Nature Communications 15 (1), 2470 (2024)

2024
[25]

W. Wú , Z. Luo, D.-X. Yao and M. Wang, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy 67 (11), 117402 (2024)

2024
[26]

Sakakibara, N

H. Sakakibara, N. Kitamine, M. Ochi and K. Kuroki, Physical Review Letters 132 (10), 106002 (2024)

2024
[27]

Qu, D.-W

X.-Z. Qu, D.-W. Qu, J. Chen, C. Wu, F. Yang, W. Li and G. Su, Physical Review Letters 132 (3), 036502 (2024)

2024
[28]

Jiang, Z

K. Jiang, Z. Wang and F.-C. Zhang, Chinese Physics Letters 41 (1), 017402 (2024)

2024
[29]

Cao and Y.-f

Y. Cao and Y.-f. Yang, Physical Review B 109 (8), L081105 (2024)

2024
[30]

Y.-H. Tian, Y. Chen, J.-M. Wang, R.-Q. He and Z.-Y. Lu, Physical Review B 109 (16), 165154 (2024)

2024
[31]

Z. H. Huo, Z. H. Luo, P. Zhang, A. Q. Yang, Z. T. Liu, X. R. Tao, Z. H. Zhang, S. M. Guo, Q. W. Jiang, W. X. Chen, D. X. Yao, D. F. Duan and T. Cui, Science China - Physics Mechanics & Astronomy 68 (3) (2025)

2025
[32]

Geisler, J

B. Geisler, J. J. Hamlin, G. R. Stewart, R. G. Hennig and P. J. Hirschfeld, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14600 (2024)

2024
[33]

E. K. Ko, Y. Yu, Y. Liu, L. Bhatt, J. Li, V. Thampy, C. -T. Kuo, B. Y. Wang, Y. Lee, K. Lee, J.-S. Lee, B. H. Goodge, D. A. Muller and H. Y. Hwang, Nature (2024)

2024
[34]

Bhatt, A

L. Bhatt, A. Y. Jiang, E. K. Ko, N. Schnitzer, G. A. Pan, D. Šegedin, Y. Liu, Y. Yu, Y.-F. Zhao, E. A. Morales, C. M. Brooks, A. S. Botana, H. Y. Hwang, J. A. Mundy, D. A. Muller, and B. H., arXiv preprint arXiv: 2501.08204 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[35]

P. Li, G. Zhou, W. Lv, Y. Li, C. Yue, H. Huang, L. Xu, J. Shen, Y. Miao, W. Song, Z. Nie, Y. Chen, H. Wang, W. Chen, Y. Huang, Z. -H. Chen, T. Qian, J. Lin, J. He, Y. Sun, Z. Chen, and Q.-K. Xue, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09255 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[36]

Kresse and J

G. Kresse and J. Furthmü ller, Computational Materials Science 6, 15 (1996)

1996
[37]

P. E. Blö chl, Physical Review B 50, 17953 (1994). [38]J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Physical Review Letters 77, 3865 (1996)

1994
[39]

S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. J. Humphreys, and A. P. Sutton, Physical Review B 57, 1505 (1998)

1998
[40]

A. I. Liechtenstein, V. I. Anisimov, and J. Zaanen, Physical Review B 52, R5467 (1995)

1995
[41]

Oh and Y.-H

H. Oh and Y.-H. Zhang, Physical Review B 108, 174511 (2023)

2023
[42]

Shao, Y.-B

Z.-Y. Shao, Y.-B. Liu, M. Liu, and F. Yang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10409v2 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[43]

Yue, J.-J

C. Yue, J.-J. Miao, H. Huang, Y. Hua, P. Li, Y. Li, G. Zhou, W. Lv, Q. Yang, H. Sun, Y. Sun, J. Lin, Q. -K. Xue, Z. Chen, and W. Chen, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.06875v1 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[44]

C. Le, J. Zhan, X. Wu, and J. Hu, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14665v1 (2025). [45]Y. Liu, E. K. Ko, Y. Tarn, L. Bhatt, B. H. Goodge, D. A. Muller, S. Raghu, Y. Yu, and H. Y. Hwang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.08022 (2025). [46]G. Zhou, W. Lv, H. Wang, Z. Nie, Y. Chen, Y. Li, H. Hu...

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

H. Sun, M. Huo, X. Hu, J. Li, Z. Liu, Y. Han, L. Tang, Z. Mao, P. Yang, B. Wang, J. Cheng, D.-X. Yao, G.-M. Zhang and M. Wang, Nature 621 (7979), 493-498 (2023)

work page 2023

[2] [2]

J. Hou, P. Yang, Z. Liu, J. Li, P. Shan, L. Ma, G. Wang, N. Wang, H. Guo, J. Sun, Y. Uwatoko, M. Wang, G. Zhang, B. Wang and J. Cheng, Chin. Phys. Lett. 40 (11), 117302 (2023)

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Zhang, D

Y. Zhang, D. Su, Y. Huang, Z. Shan, H. Sun, M. Huo, K. Ye, J. Zhang, Z. Yang, Y. Xu, Y. Su, R. Li, M. Smidman, M. Wang, L. Jiao and H. Yuan, Nature Physics (2024)

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Y. Zhou, J. Guo, S. Cai, H. Sun, P. Wang, J. Zhao, J. Han, X. Chen, Q. Wu, Y. Ding, M. Wang, T. Xiang, H. Mao and L. Sun, Arxiv preprint arXiv:2311.12361 (2023)

arXiv 2023

[5] [5]

G. Wang, N. N. Wang, X. L. Shen, J. Hou, L. Ma, L. F. Shi, Z. A. Ren, Y. D. Gu, H. M. Ma, P. T. Yang, Z. Y. Liu, H. Z. Guo, J. P. Sun, G. M. Zhang, S. Calder, J. Q. Yan, B. S. Wang, Y. Uwatoko and J. G. Cheng, Physical Review X 14 (1), 011040 (2024)

work page 2024

[6] [6]

L. Wang, Y. Li, S.-Y. Xie, F. Liu, H. Sun, C. Huang, Y. Gao, T. Nakagawa, B. Fu, B. Dong, Z. Cao, R. Yu, S. I. Kawaguchi, H. Kadobayashi, M. Wang, C. Jin, H.-k. Mao and H. Liu, Journal of the American Chemical Society 146 (11), 7506-7514 (2024)

work page 2024

[7] [7]

J. Li, P. Ma, H. Zhang, X. Huang, C. Huang, M. Huo, D. Hu, Z. Dong, C. He, J. Liao, X. Chen, T. Xie, H. Sun and M. Wang, ArXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11369 (2024)

arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

Z. Luo, X. Hu, M. Wang, W. Wú and D.-X. Yao, Physical Review Letters 131 (12), 126001 (2023)

work page 2023