Symmetry-Enforced Dirac Fermions and Structural Metastability in Pentagonal Monolayers of Transition-Metal Ditellurides

Avinash Sah; Clayton Conner; Guang Bian; Manoj Gadtoula; Ronghao Luo

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Symmetry-Enforced Dirac Fermions and Structural Metastability in Pentagonal Monolayers of Transition-Metal Ditellurides

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Pentagonal XTe2 monolayers are symmetry-enforced Dirac semiconductors.

desk verdict The symmetry proof is correct and the DFT is solid, but the title oversells 'Dirac fermions' — the algebra enforces fourfold degeneracy, not linear dispersion, and the crossings sit below the Fermi level. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.15580 v1 pith:XAC4QAB6 submitted 2026-07-17 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Manoj Gadtoula , Clayton Conner , Avinash Sah , Ronghao Luo , Guang Bian This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords pentagonalmonolayerstransition-metalditelluridesnonsymmorphicsymmetryDiracfermionsspin-orbitcouplingTe–Tedimerizationsemimetal-to-semiconductortransitionlayergroupp21/b11

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 argues that when group-10 ditelluride monolayers (PdTe2, PtTe2, NiTe2) adopt the pentagonal p21/b11 structure, they become a new class of 2D semiconductors: sizable ~1 eV gaps coexist with symmetry-protected fourfold Dirac points at the X and Y corners of the rectangular Brillouin zone. The fourfold degeneracy is not accidental. It follows from the anticommutation of inversion and glide at those momenta, combined with Kramers degeneracy, so it holds for every band in all three compounds as long as inversion and glide survive. Separately, an interpolation between hexagonal and pentagonal phases shows the semimetal-to-semiconductor transition is triggered only when Te–Te dimers form and split Te p states, not simply when the symmetry lowers. A sympathetic reader would care because this links a chemical-bonding mechanism (dimerization) with a purely symmetry-enforced topological feature in experimentally accessible monolayers.

What carries the argument

The central object is the nonsymmorphic glide operation G (a mirror reflection followed by half-unit translations) acting together with inversion P and time reversal T. At the zone-corner momenta X and Y, the glide and inversion anticommute: G P = - P G. This forces opposite-glide partners for every state, and the Kramers theorem from (PT)^2=-1 doubles each partner, yielding the fourfold Dirac point. The same relations produce the spinless nodal-line degeneracies along X–M and M–Y, and they predict SOC splits those lines into Kramers doublets except at X/Y.

What would settle it

Measure angle-resolved photoemission on epitaxial pentagonal PdTe2 monolayers: if the X and Y points show only two distinct Kramers doublets split in energy, or no crossing at all, the fourfold-node claim is falsified. A lighter check is a hybrid-functional or GW band-structure calculation for penta-PdTe2: if the band ordering at X/Y changes so the Dirac nodes move hundreds of meV from the Fermi level, the material is not a 'Dirac semiconductor' in the claimed sense even if the symmetry-enforced degeneracy persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For pentagonal XTe2 monolayers (layer group p21/b11), the operator identity G P = exp(-i(kx+ky)) P G makes inversion and glide anticommute at X=(π,0) and Y=(0,π). Because those points are time-reversal invariant, inversion maps a state to a partner of opposite glide eigenvalue, and since (PT)^2=-1 each partner carries a Kramers doublet; hence every band at X and Y is fourfold degenerate in the presence of SOC. DFT band structures show these are anisotropic conical crossings near the Fermi level for PdTe2, PtTe2, and NiTe2, and breaking inversion or glide gaps them. Without SOC, the same nonsymmorphic symmetries enforce fourfold nodal lines along the entire zone boundary X–M–Y. The paper furt

Load-bearing premise

The proof of fourfold degeneracy is secure if the monolayer really has p21/b11 symmetry, but the claim that these are the low-energy Dirac nodes near the Fermi level rests on DFT (PBE) band ordering and on the structural assignment; if the true material reconstructs differently or the ordering is wrong, the nodes may sit far from the Fermi level even though symmetry still forces them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any perturbation that preserves both inversion and the glide symmetry cannot open a gap at the X and Y Dirac nodes, so the fourfold crossings are immune to strain, substrate, or layer stacking that keeps the p21/b11 symmetry intact.
The same symmetry argument applies to the pentagonal sulfides and selenides of Pd, Pt, Ni, since they share the layer group; the paper notes the crossing mechanism generalizes across XQ2 (Q = S, Se, Te).
Because the gap opens only after the Te–Te distance contracts below ~2.9 Å, tuning dimer strength (chemical pressure, epitaxial strain) is a concrete route to control semimetal–semiconductor switching.
The quasiparticle velocities at the Dirac nodes are highly anisotropic (up to ~4×10^5 m/s toward Γ and an order of magnitude or more slower along the zone edge), which implies strongly direction-dependent transport for carriers near the nodes.

Reading between the lines

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

The symmetry argument only fixes degeneracy, not the band ordering; if more accurate many-body or hybrid-functional calculations shift the crossing bands away from the Fermi level, the Dirac nodes would remain in the spectrum but would not act as low-energy fermions — a testable distinction.
If the fourfold degenerate nodes sit at the Fermi surface, these monolayers would combine gapped semiconducting transport with protected crossings; computing the Berry phase or topological charge of the nodes could reveal whether they carry nontrivial topology beyond degeneracy.
The thresholded gap opening suggests a general design rule: in pentagonal tellurides, dimerization is the control knob, so alloying or strain that changes Te–Te bond length can continuously tune between nodal semimetal and semiconductor in the same monolayer.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth reading if you work on pentagonal TMDs. The paper does three real things: it characterizes penta-PtTe2 and NiTe2 monolayers as dynamically stable semiconductors, it shows a gap-opening threshold along a hex-to-penta interpolation that tracks Te–Te dimerization, and it gives a clean nonsymmorphic symmetry argument for fourfold degeneracies at X and Y. The symmetry argument checks out: with layer group p21/b11 the inversion and glide anticommute at X and Y, and (P T)^2 = −1 doubles the degeneracy, so every band at those points is fourfold degenerate with SOC. That part is rigorous, and the application to this family is new.

The soft spot is the 'Dirac fermion' label. The algebra proves degeneracy; it does not prove the dispersion is linear. The paper shows conical DFT surfaces for PdTe2 and extracts velocities, with Pt/Ni delegated to the supplement. That is a numerical demonstration, not a symmetry-enforced result. On top of that, the PdTe2 crossings sit roughly 0.3 eV below E_F in the valence manifold, so even if they are linear they are not low-energy fermionic excitations. Fixable by revising the title and claims to 'fourfold-degenerate crossings' and reserving 'Dirac' for cases where linearity is explicitly shown, with a k·p analysis or at least the same surface plots for all three compounds in the main text.

The interpolation part is suggestive but softer. The λ path is a constructed linear interpolation of lattice vectors and fractional coordinates with internal relaxation; the threshold λ≈0.4 is path-dependent. The qualitative story — dimerization drives bonding–antibonding splitting — is well supported by the bond lengths, ELF, DOS, and charge densities, so I would not call it wrong. I just would not treat the exact threshold as a physical quantity. Using only PdTe2 for the interpolation is fine for a representative case, but the text could say more clearly that Pt/Ni are expected to behave the same way.

Minor things: no convergence tests or benchmarks for the gaps, no data or structures deposited, and the sulfide/selenide extension is only in supplementary figures. For a prediction paper, sharing relaxed structures and band data would help, and quoting PBE gaps without a caveat is a bit risky.

Bottom line: send it out. A good referee can force the authors to tighten the Dirac language and add the missing benchmarks. The symmetry argument and the DFT characterization are worth publishing. If I were working on this family, I'd cite it for the penta-PtTe2/NiTe2 results.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports first-principles DFT (PBE+SOC) and phonon calculations for monolayer XTe2 (X=Pd, Pt, Ni) in both hexagonal (1T) and pentagonal polymorphs. The key structural claims are that the pentagonal phase is dynamically stable but metastable, and that it is semiconducting with gaps of 0.92–1.32 eV. The paper also constructs a continuous linear interpolation between hexagonal and pentagonal structures parameterized by λ and observes that the semimetal-to-semiconductor transition occurs only beyond λ≈0.4, which it attributes to Te–Te dimerization rather than to symmetry reduction alone. The central symmetry result is a group-theoretic proof that, in the nonmagnetic p21/b11 layer group, inversion and glide anticommute at X=(π,0) and Y=(0,π), and together with (P̂T̂)^2=-1 this enforces fourfold degeneracies at those points when SOC is included. The authors identify these degeneracies as symmetry-enforced Dirac points, characterize their anisotropic velocities for PdTe2, and show that explicit symmetry breaking lifts the degeneracy.

Significance. If fully established, the work would extend the experimentally realized pentagonal PdTe2 phase to a family of metastable two-dimensional nonsymmorphic semiconductors and would provide a clean example of symmetry-enforced fourfold band degeneracies coexisting with a sizable gap. The group-theoretic derivation in Sec. III C is standard, self-contained, and independent of chemical identity; it is a genuine strength. The metastability claim is supported by phonon calculations, and the dimerization picture is corroborated by multiple independent observables (bond-length evolution, ELF, DOS, and charge densities). The main gap between what is proven and what is claimed is the use of the term 'Dirac fermions' for degeneracies whose linear dispersion is only inferred from DFT surface plots, and the path-dependent nature of the 'intermediate structural threshold.' These issues are load-bearing for the title and abstract, but they are addressable by revision.

major comments (3)

[III C] The rigorous result is a fourfold degeneracy at X and Y, not necessarily a Dirac cone. The proof shows degeneracy but does not show that the leading k·p term is linear; a fourfold degeneracy at a TRIM can have quadratic or even flat dispersion. The linearity is asserted from the 3D DFT surfaces in Figs. 3(d,e), which are shown only for PdTe2, with PtTe2 and NiTe2 relegated to Supplementary Fig. S2. Please add an explicit k·p effective Hamiltonian around X and Y showing that the two Kramers doublets disperse linearly, or revise the 'Dirac fermion' claim to 'fourfold-degenerate band crossings' and state that the linear dispersion is a numerical (DFT) observation rather than a symmetry-enforced property.
[III C / Fig. 3] The nodes D1 and D2 in pentagonal PdTe2 lie approximately 0.3 eV below the Fermi level, inside the valence manifold, and the compound is a semiconductor with a 1.23 eV gap. Thus these are not low-energy fermionic excitations at the Fermi level; they are occupied band degeneracies. The paper should explicitly state this and qualify the 'Dirac fermion' language. The symmetry-enforced degeneracy is a valid band-structure feature, but calling it 'Dirac fermion physics' without noting the energy position and the absence of in-gap transport is an overstatement.
[III D] The central threshold claim that the semimetal-to-semiconductor transition occurs only after an intermediate structural threshold λ≈0.4 is obtained from a specific linear interpolation pathway in which lattice vectors are fixed at interpolated values and only internal coordinates are relaxed. This is not a physical reaction path (no NEB or other minimum-energy-path calculation was performed), so the threshold could be an artifact of the chosen interpolation. The correlation with Te–Te bond length is suggestive, but the conclusion that the transition 'occurs only after an intermediate structural threshold rather than at the onset of symmetry reduction' is path-dependent as presented. Please either test the robustness of the threshold using an alternative path/order parameter or clearly restrict the claim to the constructed pathway.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. III C] The anticommutation {P̂,Ĝ}=0 at X/Y relies on the phase convention for the inversion center relative to the glide; please state this convention explicitly.
[Table I] The gaps are PBE+SOC values; PBE is known to underestimate gaps in some d-electron systems. A brief note on the functional dependence or a comparison with a hybrid functional would strengthen the quantitative claim of '~1 eV' gaps.
[Sec. III A] The assignment to layer group p21/b11 is stated but not explicitly verified, e.g., by a symmetry-finding analysis of the relaxed coordinates. Please provide the atomic coordinates or a symmetry check to confirm the ideal space group at the relaxed geometry.
[Fig. 3(c)] The 'symmetry-broken phase' is described only by atomic displacements of ~1.5% of the lattice constant (Supplementary Table S1). It would be clearer to state which of the protecting symmetries (inversion, glide, or both) are broken and to show the resulting structure.
[Conclusion] The extension to pentagonal sulfides and selenides (Supplementary Figs. S3 and S4) is mentioned as a key generalization, but no data are shown in the main text. Please ensure these figures are included in the submission and summarized meaningfully.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the symmetry-enforced degeneracy proof is self-contained, and the DFT results confirm rather than fit the prediction.

full rationale

The central claim—fourfold degeneracy at X and Y—is derived in Sec. III C from first principles. The paper defines inversion and glide operators (Eqs. 3, 4), derives the noncommutation relation ĜP̂ = e^{-i(kx+ky)}P̂Ĝ (Eq. 8), obtains {P̂,Ĝ}=0 at X and Y (Eq. 9), and combines the glide-inversion doubling with the (P̂T̂)^2=-1 Kramers degeneracy to obtain a 2×2=4 fourfold degeneracy (Eqs. 19, 27). This argument does not take the DFT band structures as input; the calculated bands are used as confirmation of the symmetry prediction, not to fit any parameter. No fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction: the Dirac velocities are extracted from the converged band surfaces, and the λ≈0.4 threshold for gap opening is a descriptive finding from the interpolation trajectory, not a parameter fitted to then predict a closely related quantity. Self-citations appear (e.g., refs. 9, 40, 41) but are contextual and not load-bearing; the nonsymmorphic degeneracy framework is attributed to independent literature (refs. 42–44). A legitimate caveat is that the exact symmetry algebra proves degeneracy but not the linear 'Dirac' dispersion or the proximity of the crossings to the Fermi level; those aspects rest on DFT and are better classified as a completeness or correctness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The paper uses standard DFT methodology and standard symmetry analysis. The interpolation parameter λ is a modeling tool whose threshold value is path-dependent. The main assumptions are structural (layer group assignment) and methodological (DFT-PBE accuracy), both standard for this subfield.

free parameters (1)

Interpolation parameter λ = 0.4 (threshold)
The path from hex to penta is constructed by linear interpolation of lattice vectors and atomic coordinates; the threshold λ≈0.4 where the gap opens is read off this specific path. The value is not unique to the physics; it depends on the chosen interpolation, which is a modeling choice. The gap opening is correlated with Te–Te distance, so the physical conclusion may be robust, but λc is a free c

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The pentagonal structure belongs to layer group p21/b11 with the specific glide G={M_y|1/2,1/2,0} and inversion P as stated.
The entire symmetry analysis depends on this. If the relaxed structure actually has lower symmetry (e.g., because the Te–Te dimers break the glide), the Dirac points would not be protected. The paper states this assignment but does not provide a full symmetry analysis of the relaxed coordinates.
domain assumption PBE-DFT accurately describes the band structure near the Fermi level, including the presence of a gap and the position of the Dirac crossings.
Standard DFT approximations can misorder bands and underestimate gaps; no hybrid or GW benchmark is provided. The symmetry-protected degeneracy at X/Y is exact, but the location near the Fermi level and the semiconducting character depend on DFT accuracy.
domain assumption Time-reversal and inversion are preserved in the pentagonal monolayers.
Assumed for the nonmagnetic centrosymmetric structure; if magnetism or a structural distortion breaks them, the fourfold degeneracy is no longer exact.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symmetry-Enforced Dirac Fermions and Structural Metastability in Pentagonal Monolayers of Transition-Metal Ditellurides." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XAC4QAB6

@misc{pith2026260715580,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symmetry-Enforced Dirac Fermions and Structural Metastability in Pentagonal Monolayers of Transition-Metal Ditellurides},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XAC4QAB6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15580}
}

abstract

The recent synthesis of pentagonal PdTe$_2$ monolayer motivates broader research interests in transition-metal ditellurides whose electronic phases are governed by symmetry and structural reconstruction. The pentagonal phase of transition-metal ditellurides exhibits electronic properties that are dramatically different from those of its hexagonal counterpart due to its lower crystalline symmetry. Using first-principles calculations, we study monolayer $X$Te$_2$ ($X=\mathrm{Pd},\mathrm{Pt},\mathrm{Ni}$) in both hexagonal and pentagonal polymorphs. By constructing a continuous structural interpolation between the hexagonal and pentagonal phases, we show that the semimetal (hex)-to-semiconductor (penta) transition occurs only after an intermediate structural threshold rather than at the onset of symmetry reduction. The gap opening coincides with the formation of Te--Te dimers, which drive the bonding--antibonding splitting of the Te $p$ states and reorganize the band edges. In addition, the nonsymmorphic symmetry of the pentagonal phase enforces band degeneracies at the Brillouin-zone boundary, leading to symmetry-protected two-dimensional (2D) Dirac states. These results establish pentagonal $X$Te$_2$ monolayers as a new class of 2D semiconductors in which symmetry constraints and local bonding collectively shape the unconventional semiconducting electronic structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15580 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Electronic band structures of pentagonal (Penta) and hexagonal (1T) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Effects of spin–orbit coupling (SOC) and symmetry breaking on the electronic structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Evolution of the crystal and electronic structures of PdTe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references

[1]

Q. H. Wang, K. Kalantar-Zadeh, A. Kis, J. N. Coleman, and M. S. Strano, Nature Nanotech- nology7, 699 (2012). 15

2012
[2]

Chhowalla, H

M. Chhowalla, H. S. Shin, G. Eda, L.-J. Li, K. P. Loh, and H. Zhang, Nature Chemistry5, 263 (2013)

2013
[3]

Manzeli, D

S. Manzeli, D. Ovchinnikov, D. Pasquier, O. V. Yazyev, and A. Kis, Nature Reviews Materials 2, 17033 (2017)

2017
[4]

K.-A. N. Duerloo, Y. Li, and E. J. Reed, Nature Communications5, 4214 (2014)

2014
[5]

Li, K.-A

Y. Li, K.-A. N. Duerloo, K. Wauson, and E. J. Reed, Nature Communications7, 10671 (2016)

2016
[6]

Y. Wang, J. Xiao, H. Zhu, Y. Li, Y. Alsaid, K. Y. Fong, Y. Zhou, S. Wang, W. Shi, Y. Wang, A. Zettl, E. J. Reed, and X. Zhang, Nature550, 487 (2017)

2017
[7]

S. Cho, S. Kim, J. H. Kim, J. Zhao, J. Seok, D. H. Keum, J. Baik, D.-H. Choe, K. J. Chang, K. Suenaga, S. W. Kim, Y. H. Lee, and H. Yang, Science349, 625 (2015)

2015
[8]

X. Qian, J. Liu, L. Fu, and J. Li, Science346, 1344 (2014)

2014

Show all 55 references

[9]

A. Sah, T. Y. Lim, C. Conner, A. Chakraborty, G. Vignale, T.-R. Chang, P. Sukhachov, and G. Bian, npj Quantum Materials 10.1038/s41535-026-00885-5 (2026)

2026 doi
[10]

Huang, S

H. Huang, S. Zhou, and W. Duan, Phys. Rev. B94, 121117(R) (2016)

2016
[11]

M. S. Bahramy, O. J. Clark, B.-J. Yang, J. Feng, L. Bawden, J. M. Riley, I. Markovi´ c, F. Maz- zola, V. Sunko, D. Biswas, S. P. Cooil, M. Jorge, J. W. Wells, M. Leandersson, T. Balasub- ramanian, J. Fujii, I. Vobornik, J. E. Rault, T. K. Kim, M. Hoesch, K. Okawa, M. Asakawa, ...

2018
[12]

H.-J. Noh, J. Jeong, E.-J. Cho, K. Kim, B. I. Min, and B.-G. Park, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 016401 (2017)

2017
[13]

M. Yan, H. Huang, K. Zhang, E. Wang, W. Yao, K. Deng, G. Wan, H. Zhang, M. Arita, H. Yang, Z. Sun, H. Yao, Y. Wu, S. Fan, W. Duan, and S. Zhou, Nature Communications8, 257 (2017)

2017
[14]

C. Xu, B. Li, W. Jiao, W. Zhou, B. Qian, R. Sankar, N. D. Zhigadlo, Y. Qi, D. Qian, F.-C. Chou, and X. Xu, Chem. Mater.30, 4823 (2018)

2018
[15]

A. A. Soluyanov, D. Gresch, Z. Wang, Q. Wu, M. Troyer, X. Dai, and B. A. Bernevig, Nature 527, 495 (2015)

2015
[16]

Shen and Q

Y. Shen and Q. Wang, Physics Reports964, 1 (2022)

2022
[17]

Liang, Z

Q. Liang, Z. Chen, Q. Zhang, and A. T. S. Wee, Advanced Functional Materials32, 2203555 (2022). 16

2022
[18]

Zhang, J

S. Zhang, J. Zhou, Q. Wang, X. Chen, Y. Kawazoe, and P. Jena, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112, 2372 (2015)

2015
[19]

A. D. Oyedele, S. Yang, L. Liang, A. A. Puretzky, K. Wang, J. Zhang, P. Yu, P. R. Pudasaini, A. W. Ghosh, Z. Liu, C. M. Rouleau, B. G. Sumpter, M. F. Chisholm, W. Zhou, P. D. Rack, D. B. Geohegan, and K. Xiao, J. Am. Chem. Soc.139, 14090 (2017)

2017
[20]

Kempt, A

R. Kempt, A. Kuc, and T. Heine, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.59, 9242 (2020)

2020
[21]

Bravo, M

S. Bravo, M. Pacheco, V. Nu˜ nez, J. D. Correa, and L. Chico, Nanoscale13, 6117 (2021)

2021
[22]

Bravo, M

S. Bravo, M. Pacheco, J. D. Correa, and L. Chico, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.24, 15749 (2022)

2022
[23]

L. Liu, Y. Ji, M. Bianchi, S. M. Hus, Z. Li, R. Balog, J. A. Miwa, P. Hofmann, A.-P. Li, D. Y. Zemlyanov, Y. Li, and Y. P. Chen, Nature Materials23, 1339 (2024)

2024
[24]

Sharma, V

P. Sharma, V. Roondhe, and A. Shukla, Phys. Rev. B110, 214108 (2024)

2024
[25]

Y. Sun, I. Shah, R. Yang, D. Zhu, Y. Liu, W. Liu, Z. Wu, and H. Ye, ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 8, 22694 (2025)

2025
[26]

C. Hou, J. Xin, Y. Shen, Y. Guo, and Q. Wang, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.16, 7177 (2025)

2025
[27]

K. Han, C. Tao, P. Tang, Z. Peng, X. Xiao, and T. Chen, Chemical Engineering Journal522, 168157 (2025)

2025
[28]

Parkar, A

P. Parkar, A. Chaudhari, and B. Chakraborty, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.28, 1594 (2026)

2026
[29]

Lan, X.-R

Y.-S. Lan, X.-R. Chen, C.-E. Hu, Y. Cheng, and Q.-F. Chen, J. Mater. Chem. A7, 11134 (2019)

2019
[30]

Tao, Y.-Q

W.-L. Tao, Y.-Q. Zhao, Z.-Y. Zeng, X.-R. Chen, and H.-Y. Geng, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 13, 8700 (2021)

2021
[31]

Xiong, K

W. Xiong, K. Huang, and S. Yuan, J. Mater. Chem. C7, 13518 (2019)

2019
[32]

S. M. Young and C. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 126803 (2015)

2015
[33]

Fang and L

C. Fang and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. B91, 161105(R) (2015)

2015
[34]

B. J. Wieder and C. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. B94, 155108 (2016)

2016
[35]

Y. X. Zhao and A. P. Schnyder, Phys. Rev. B94, 195109 (2016)

2016
[36]

Z. Wang, A. Alexandradinata, R. J. Cava, and B. A. Bernevig, Nature532, 189 (2016)

2016
[37]

B. J. Wieder, B. Bradlyn, Z. Wang, J. Cano, Y. Kim, H.-S. D. Kim, A. M. Rappe, C. L. Kane, and B. A. Bernevig, Science361, 246 (2018)

2018
[38]

L. M. Schoop, M. N. Ali, C. Straßer, A. Topp, A. Varykhalov, D. Marchenko, V. Duppel, S. S. P. Parkin, B. V. Lotsch, and C. R. Ast, Nature Communications7, 11696 (2016). 17

2016
[39]

S. Guan, Y. Liu, Z.-M. Yu, S.-S. Wang, Y. Yao, and S. A. Yang, Phys. Rev. Mater.1, 054003 (2017)

2017
[40]

P. J. Kowalczyk, S. A. Brown, T. Maerkl, Q. Lu, C.-K. Chiu, Y. Liu, S. A. Yang, X. Wang, I. Zasada, F. Genuzio, T. O. Mente¸ s, A. Locatelli, T.-C. Chiang, and G. Bian, ACS Nano14, 1888 (2020)

2020
[41]

Q. Lu, K. Y. Chen, M. Snyder, J. Cook, D. T. Nguyen, P. V. S. Reddy, T.-R. Chang, S. A. Yang, and G. Bian, Phys. Rev. B104, L201105 (2021)

2021
[42]

Bradlyn, L

B. Bradlyn, L. Elcoro, J. Cano, M. G. Vergniory, Z. Wang, C. Felser, M. I. Aroyo, and B. A. Bernevig, Nature547, 298 (2017)

2017
[43]

H. C. Po, A. Vishwanath, and H. Watanabe, Nature Communications8, 50 (2017)

2017
[44]

J. Cano, B. Bradlyn, Z. Wang, L. Elcoro, M. G. Vergniory, C. Felser, M. I. Aroyo, and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 266401 (2018)

2018
[45]

Y. S. Oh, J. J. Yang, Y. Horibe, and S.-W. Cheong, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 127209 (2013)

2013
[46]

H. Cao, B. C. Chakoumakos, X. Chen, J. Yan, M. A. McGuire, H. Yang, R. Custelcean, H. Zhou, D. J. Singh, and D. Mandrus, Phys. Rev. B88, 115122 (2013)

2013
[47]

G. L. Pascut, K. Haule, M. J. Gutmann, S. A. Barnett, A. Bombardi, S. Artyukhin, T. Birol, D. Vanderbilt, J. J. Yang, S.-W. Cheong, and V. Kiryukhin, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 086402 (2014)

2014
[48]

Mazumdar, K

D. Mazumdar, K. Haule, J. J. Yang, G. L. Pascut, B. S. Holinsworth, K. R. O’Neal, V. Kiryukhin, S.-W. Cheong, and J. L. Musfeldt, Phys. Rev. B91, 041105(R) (2015)

2015
[49]

Hwang, K

J. Hwang, K. Kim, C. Zhang, T. Zhu, C. Herbig, S. Kim, B. Kim, Y. Zhong, M. Salah, M. M. El-Desoky, C. Hwang, Z.-X. Shen, M. F. Crommie, and S.-K. Mo, Nature Communications 13, 906 (2022)

2022
[50]

Kresse and J

G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Computational Materials Science6, 15 (1996)

1996
[51]

P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Phys. Rev. B50, 17953 (1994)

1994
[52]

Kresse and D

G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B59, 1758 (1999)

1999
[53]

J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3865 (1996)

1996
[54]

Togo and I

A. Togo and I. Tanaka, Scripta Materialia108, 1 (2015)

2015
[55]

Adenis, V

C. Adenis, V. Langer, and O. Lindqvist, Acta Crystallographica Section C-crystal Structure Communications45, 941 (1989). 18 FIGURES 19 Frequency (THz) Penta-NiTe2 (a) (b) Top View abc Side View X (Pd, Pt, Ni) Te M ΓX Y ΓMK (c) (d)bac bca bca Penta-PtTe2Penta-PdTe2 (e) (f) (g) ...

1989

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Q. H. Wang, K. Kalantar-Zadeh, A. Kis, J. N. Coleman, and M. S. Strano, Nature Nanotech- nology7, 699 (2012). 15

2012

[2] [2]

Chhowalla, H

M. Chhowalla, H. S. Shin, G. Eda, L.-J. Li, K. P. Loh, and H. Zhang, Nature Chemistry5, 263 (2013)

2013

[3] [3]

Manzeli, D

S. Manzeli, D. Ovchinnikov, D. Pasquier, O. V. Yazyev, and A. Kis, Nature Reviews Materials 2, 17033 (2017)

2017

[4] [4]

K.-A. N. Duerloo, Y. Li, and E. J. Reed, Nature Communications5, 4214 (2014)

2014

[5] [5]

Li, K.-A

Y. Li, K.-A. N. Duerloo, K. Wauson, and E. J. Reed, Nature Communications7, 10671 (2016)

2016

[6] [6]

Y. Wang, J. Xiao, H. Zhu, Y. Li, Y. Alsaid, K. Y. Fong, Y. Zhou, S. Wang, W. Shi, Y. Wang, A. Zettl, E. J. Reed, and X. Zhang, Nature550, 487 (2017)

2017

[7] [7]

S. Cho, S. Kim, J. H. Kim, J. Zhao, J. Seok, D. H. Keum, J. Baik, D.-H. Choe, K. J. Chang, K. Suenaga, S. W. Kim, Y. H. Lee, and H. Yang, Science349, 625 (2015)

2015

[8] [8]

X. Qian, J. Liu, L. Fu, and J. Li, Science346, 1344 (2014)

2014