pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.25125 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el · cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Identifying strong correlation using only the Kohn-Sham density of one-electron states

Daniel D. Rivera , Gustavo M. Dalpian , John P. Perdew This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 15:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords strong electron correlationKohn-Sham density of statessymmetry breakingFermi levelcorrelation parameter Gammadensity functional theoryspin polarizationuniform electron gas
0
0 comments X

The pith

Symmetry breaking in the Kohn-Sham system accounts for strong correlation effects in standard DFT.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that strong correlation often appears in symmetric configurations as near-degeneracies around the Fermi level, which produce a high density of states. Allowing symmetry breaking, such as spin polarization, in the non-interacting Kohn-Sham calculation lifts those degeneracies, lowers the density of states at the Fermi level, and stabilizes the energy. This change turns a would-be strongly correlated case into a normally correlated one that standard density functional theory can describe without extra interaction terms. The authors introduce a simple ratio called Gamma to measure how much the Kohn-Sham density of states at the Fermi level exceeds that of a uniform electron gas, thereby flagging which systems still need beyond-DFT treatments.

Core claim

Symmetry breaking in the Kohn-Sham non-interacting system can qualitatively account for the energetic effects of strong correlation in the corresponding interacting system within standard DFT. By lifting near-degeneracies around the Fermi level, symmetry breaking diminishes the potential correlation effects, reducing the need for an explicit treatment of electron correlation, transforming an otherwise strongly correlated symmetric configuration into a normally correlated one, thus avoiding the need for interacting methods beyond DFT.

What carries the argument

The correlation parameter Gamma, the ratio of the Kohn-Sham density of one-electron states at the Fermi level to the corresponding density in a uniform electron gas, which quantifies whether a system remains strongly correlated after symmetry breaking.

If this is right

  • Spin symmetry breaking produces a pronounced drop in the density of states at the Fermi level for strongly correlated metals.
  • The same symmetry breaking yields a significant lowering of the total energy in those strongly correlated cases.
  • The method naturally connects nonmagnetic symmetric states to magnetic broken-symmetry states.
  • Normally correlated systems show smaller reductions in density of states and energy upon symmetry breaking.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The Gamma parameter could serve as a rapid pre-screening tool in high-throughput materials searches to decide whether a compound needs advanced correlation methods.
  • The same symmetry-breaking logic might extend to other degeneracies, such as orbital or charge ordering, in different classes of correlated materials.
  • If the approach holds, many existing DFT calculations that already include spin polarization may already be capturing strong-correlation stabilization without explicit recognition.

Load-bearing premise

Symmetry breaking in the Kohn-Sham non-interacting system can qualitatively account for the energetic effects of strong correlation in the corresponding interacting system within standard DFT.

What would settle it

For a known strongly correlated material, the total energy obtained from a symmetry-broken Kohn-Sham calculation remains substantially higher than the energy from an interacting method such as DMFT or quantum Monte Carlo.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25125 by Daniel D. Rivera, Gustavo M. Dalpian, John P. Perdew.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Spin symmetry breaking effect on the density of view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Densities of states for (a) symmetric (nonmagnetic) view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Densities of states for (a) symmetric (nonmagnetic) view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Density of states for symmetric (nonmagnetic) Cu. view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. ∆ view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Strongly correlated systems have long been a central and highly non-trivial topic in condensed matter physics. At the non-interacting level, strong correlation can be associated with powerful (near) degeneracies between occupied and unoccupied states, which leads to a high density of states near the Fermi level in metallic configurations. Such regimes are commonly treated with beyond-density functional theory (DFT) approaches, such as DFT+U or DFT+DMFT while maintaining symmetric configurations. Here, we explore the hypothesis that symmetry breaking in the Kohn-Sham (KS) non-interacting system can qualitatively account for the energetic effects of strong correlation in the corresponding interacting system within standard DFT. By lifting near-degeneracies around the Fermi level, symmetry breaking diminishes the potential correlation effects, reducing the need for an explicit treatment of electron correlation, transforming an otherwise strongly correlated symmetric configuration into a normally correlated one, thus avoiding the need for interacting methods beyond DFT. This naturally connects nonmagnetic to magnetic states. We apply this idea to both strongly and normally correlated metals and observe that spin symmetry breaking leads to a pronounced reduction of the density of states at the Fermi level and a significant lowering of the total energy in strongly correlated cases. To describe the degree of correlation that the interacting system would have relative to the KS state, we introduce a correlation parameter ($\Gamma$), defined as the ratio between the Kohn-Sham density of one-electron states at the Fermi level and that of a corresponding uniform electron gas. This parameter distinguishes strongly correlated systems, which would require explicit treatment, from normally correlated ones, which do not.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that spin symmetry breaking in the Kohn-Sham non-interacting system of standard DFT can qualitatively reproduce the energetic consequences of strong correlation in the true interacting Hamiltonian. By lifting near-degeneracies at the Fermi level, symmetry breaking reduces the KS density of states at EF and lowers the total energy, converting an otherwise strongly correlated symmetric state into a normally correlated one and thereby obviating the need for beyond-DFT methods. The authors introduce a parameter-free correlation indicator Γ defined as the ratio of the computed KS DOS(EF) to the corresponding uniform-electron-gas value; this quantity is used to classify systems and is shown to drop sharply upon symmetry breaking in strongly correlated metals.

Significance. If the central hypothesis is substantiated, the work would provide a computationally inexpensive, parameter-free route within conventional DFT to identify and mitigate strong-correlation regimes via symmetry breaking, with a direct link to magnetic states. The parameter-free construction of Γ from raw KS DOS data is a clear methodological strength that avoids additional fitting.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2 and results] §2 (Hypothesis) and results section: the assertion that KS symmetry breaking accounts for the energetic effects of strong correlation rests on the observed DOS reduction and total-energy lowering, yet no quantitative comparison is provided to beyond-DFT benchmarks (e.g., DFT+DMFT or GW total energies or quasiparticle renormalizations) for the same compounds; without such anchors the claim that the KS energy lowering captures dynamical correlation remains untested.
  2. [Definition of Γ] Definition of Γ (abstract and §3): although Γ is constructed without free parameters, its use to label a system as 'strongly correlated' (and therefore in need of explicit correlation treatment) is evaluated entirely inside the same KS mean-field approximation whose deficiencies the method seeks to circumvent; a direct test against established strongly correlated benchmarks is required to demonstrate that Γ predicts the necessity of beyond-DFT methods rather than merely reflecting the KS DOS.
  3. [Results] Results on energy and DOS changes: the pronounced lowering of total energy and DOS(EF) upon spin polarization is reported for strongly correlated cases, but the manuscript supplies neither error bars from k-point convergence nor an assessment of functional dependence (e.g., PBE versus SCAN or hybrid functionals), leaving open whether the distinction between strong and normal correlation is robust or an artifact of the chosen exchange-correlation approximation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Notation] Notation: the symbol Γ is introduced for the correlation parameter; a brief statement confirming it does not conflict with standard condensed-matter usage (e.g., damping rates or surface tension) would aid readability.
  2. [Figures] Figure clarity: plots comparing DOS before and after symmetry breaking should overlay the uniform-electron-gas reference curve used in the definition of Γ for immediate visual assessment.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below in a point-by-point manner, providing our strongest honest defense while indicating revisions where the manuscript can be strengthened without misrepresenting our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §2 (Hypothesis) and results section: the assertion that KS symmetry breaking accounts for the energetic effects of strong correlation rests on the observed DOS reduction and total-energy lowering, yet no quantitative comparison is provided to beyond-DFT benchmarks (e.g., DFT+DMFT or GW total energies or quasiparticle renormalizations) for the same compounds; without such anchors the claim that the KS energy lowering captures dynamical correlation remains untested.

    Authors: Our hypothesis is explicitly qualitative: symmetry breaking in the KS non-interacting system lifts near-degeneracies at the Fermi level, reducing the DOS(EF) and lowering the total energy in a way that accounts for the main energetic stabilization associated with strong correlation in the interacting system. This is shown directly by comparing symmetric and broken-symmetry KS calculations within standard DFT. We do not assert quantitative equivalence to the dynamical correlation captured by DMFT or GW; rather, the KS broken-symmetry state effectively mitigates the need for such methods by incorporating the effect at the mean-field level. Direct benchmarks against DFT+DMFT total energies would require substantial additional computations outside the present scope. We will add a short discussion acknowledging this limitation and citing relevant literature in the revised manuscript. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Definition of Γ (abstract and §3): although Γ is constructed without free parameters, its use to label a system as 'strongly correlated' (and therefore in need of explicit correlation treatment) is evaluated entirely inside the same KS mean-field approximation whose deficiencies the method seeks to circumvent; a direct test against established strongly correlated benchmarks is required to demonstrate that Γ predicts the necessity of beyond-DFT methods rather than merely reflecting the KS DOS.

    Authors: Γ is deliberately computed from the symmetric KS DOS(EF) relative to the uniform electron gas precisely to flag cases where the non-interacting picture indicates strong correlation (high DOS), which then motivates symmetry breaking within DFT or the use of beyond-DFT methods. This is by design a KS-based diagnostic rather than a full replacement for interacting theories. We demonstrate its utility by applying it to both known strongly correlated metals (where Γ drops sharply upon symmetry breaking) and normally correlated ones (where the effect is minimal). To further address the concern, we will include in the revision explicit references to literature benchmarks showing that systems with high symmetric Γ are those conventionally requiring DMFT or similar treatments. revision: partial

  3. Referee: Results on energy and DOS changes: the pronounced lowering of total energy and DOS(EF) upon spin polarization is reported for strongly correlated cases, but the manuscript supplies neither error bars from k-point convergence nor an assessment of functional dependence (e.g., PBE versus SCAN or hybrid functionals), leaving open whether the distinction between strong and normal correlation is robust or an artifact of the chosen exchange-correlation approximation.

    Authors: We agree that numerical robustness and functional independence are important to establish. Our reported results used standard, converged k-point meshes with the PBE functional. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit k-point convergence tests with error estimates on the DOS and energy changes, and we will perform supplementary calculations using the SCAN meta-GGA functional to confirm that the qualitative distinction (large DOS and energy reduction only in strongly correlated cases) persists. These additions will be included to demonstrate robustness. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; Γ is an explicit definition from KS DOS and UEG reference

full rationale

The paper introduces Γ explicitly as the ratio of the computed Kohn-Sham density of states at the Fermi level to the corresponding uniform-electron-gas value. This is a direct computational definition with no fitting step or self-referential equation. The central hypothesis—that symmetry breaking in the non-interacting KS system can qualitatively capture energetic effects of strong correlation—is presented as an exploratory claim tested on known materials, without any derivation that reduces a prediction to its own inputs by construction. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems, and no ansatz or renaming of known results is smuggled in. The approach remains self-contained against external benchmarks of known strongly correlated systems.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard Kohn-Sham theorem and the assumption that the non-interacting KS system with broken symmetry can encode the energetic consequences of strong correlation; no new free parameters are introduced beyond the definition of Gamma, and no new particles or forces are postulated.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Kohn-Sham density functional theory provides a non-interacting reference system whose density matches the interacting ground-state density.
    Invoked throughout the abstract as the foundation for using KS states to diagnose correlation.
  • domain assumption Symmetry breaking in the KS system can qualitatively reproduce the energy lowering that strong correlation would produce in the interacting system.
    This is the load-bearing hypothesis stated in the abstract; it is not derived from first principles within the paper.
invented entities (1)
  • Correlation parameter Gamma no independent evidence
    purpose: Ratio of KS density of states at Fermi level to uniform electron gas density of states, used to classify strong vs normal correlation.
    Gamma is introduced as a diagnostic; it is computed from existing KS quantities and does not require new physical postulates.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5596 in / 1624 out tokens · 43631 ms · 2026-05-07T15:28:56.708783+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Symmetry breaking results in the lifting of degen- eracies, including accidental ones, thereby increasing the energy separation between relevant electronic states, po- tentialy decreasing the need for the explicit inclusion of electron-electron interaction terms in the non-interacting hamiltonian. In density functional theory (DFT), an auxiliary Kohn–Sham...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Martin,Electronic Structure: Basic Theory and Prac- tical Methods(Cambridge University Press, 2004)

    R. Martin,Electronic Structure: Basic Theory and Prac- tical Methods(Cambridge University Press, 2004)

    2004

  3. [4]

    A. D. Kaplan, M. Levy, and J. P. Perdew, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry74, 193–218 (2023)

    2023

  4. [5]

    I. W. Bulik, T. M. Henderson, and G. E. Scuse- ria, Journal of Chemical Theory and Com- putation11, 3171 (2015), pMID: 26575754, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00422

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00422 2015

  5. [6]

    J. P. Perdew, A. Ruzsinszky, J. Sun, N. K. Nepal, and A. D. Kaplan, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, 10.1073/pnas.2017850118 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2017850118 2021

  6. [7]

    Zunger, Nature Computational Science2, 529 (2022)

    A. Zunger, Nature Computational Science2, 529 (2022)

    2022

  7. [8]

    C. Lane, J. W. Furness, I. G. Buda, Y. Zhang, R. S. Markiewicz, B. Barbiellini, J. Sun, and A. Bansil, Phys. Rev. B98, 125140 (2018)

    2018

  8. [9]

    Xiong, X

    J.-X. Xiong, X. Zhang, and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B111, 155122 (2025)

    2025

  9. [10]

    Z. Wang, O. I. Malyi, X. Zhao, and A. Zunger, Physical Review B103, 10.1103/physrevb.103.165110 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.103.165110 2021

  10. [11]

    Badzia¸g, K

    Y. Zhang, J. Furness, R. Zhang, Z. Wang, A. Zunger, and J. Sun, Physical Review B102, 10.1103/phys- revb.102.045112 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2020

  11. [12]

    J. P. Perdew, S. T. u. R. Chowdhury, C. Shahi, A. D. Ka- plan, D. Song, and E. J. Bylaska, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A127, 384–389 (2022)

    2022

  12. [14]

    O. I. Malyi and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. Mater.7, 044409 (2023)

    2023

  13. [15]

    Joshi, M

    H. Joshi, M. Wlaz lo, H. R. Gopidi, and O. I. Malyi, Jour- nal of Applied Physics135, 10.1063/5.0175535 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0175535 2024

  14. [16]

    Xiong, X

    J.-X. Xiong, X. Zhang, and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B111, 035154 (2025)

    2025

  15. [17]

    Z.-K. Liu, N. L. E. Hew, and S.-L. Shang, Microstruc- tures4, 10.20517/microstructures.2023.56 (2024)

    work page doi:10.20517/microstructures.2023.56 2023

  16. [18]

    Maniar, K

    R. Maniar, K. P. K. Withanage, C. Shahi, A. D. Ka- plan, J. P. Perdew, and M. R. Pederson, The Journal of Chemical Physics160, 10.1063/5.0180863 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0180863 2024

  17. [19]

    Wang, X.-G

    Z. Wang, X.-G. Zhao, R. Koch, S. J. L. Billinge, and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B102, 235121 (2020)

    2020

  18. [20]

    P. W. Atkins and R. S. Friedman,Molecular Quantum Mechanics, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, 1997)

    1997

  19. [23]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Physical Re- view Letters77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  20. [25]

    S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. J. Humphreys, and A. P. Sutton, Phys. Rev. B57, 1505 (1998)

    1998

  21. [26]

    A. I. Liechtenstein, V. I. Anisimov, and J. Zaanen, Phys. Rev. B52, R5467 (1995)

    1995

  22. [27]

    Kotliar, S

    G. Kotliar, S. Y. Savrasov, K. Haule, V. S. Oudovenko, O. Parcollet, and C. A. Marianetti, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 865 (2006)

    2006

  23. [28]

    O. I. Malyi, X.-G. Zhao, and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. Mater.7, 074406 (2023)

    2023

  24. [29]

    Maniar, K

    R. Maniar, K. P. K. Withanage, C. Shahi, A. D. Ka- plan, J. P. Perdew, and M. R. Pederson, The Journal of Chemical Physics160, 144301 (2024)

    2024

  25. [30]

    LeBlanc, A

    J. LeBlanc, A. E. Antipov, F. Becca, I. W. Bulik, G. K.- L. Chan, C.-M. Chung, Y. Deng, M. Ferrero, T. M. Hen- derson, C. A. Jim´ enez-Hoyos, E. Kozik, X.-W. Liu, A. J. Millis, N. Prokof’ev, M. Qin, G. E. Scuseria, H. Shi, 7 B. Svistunov, L. F. Tocchio, I. Tupitsyn, S. R. White, S. Zhang, B.-X. Zheng, Z. Zhu, and E. Gull, Physical Review X5, 10.1103/physr...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.5.041041 2015

  26. [31]

    P. W. Anderson, Science177, 393 (1972)

    1972

  27. [32]

    Rivera, F

    D. Rivera, F. P. Sabino, H. Raebiger, A. Ruzsinszky, J. P. Perdew, and G. M. Dalpian 10.48550/ARXIV.2511.05738 (2025)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.05738 2025

  28. [33]

    A. P. Ramirez, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter9, 8171–8199 (1997)

    1997

  29. [34]

    Sangiorgio, E

    B. Sangiorgio, E. S. Bozin, C. D. Malliakas, M. Fechner, A. Simonov, M. G. Kanatzidis, S. J. L. Billinge, N. A. Spaldin, and T. Weber, Phys. Rev. Mater.2, 085402 (2018)

    2018

  30. [37]

    V. Wang, N. Xu, J.-C. Liu, G. Tang, and W.-T. Geng, Computer Physics Communications267, 108033 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Kittel, P

    C. Kittel, P. McEuen, and J. W. . Sons,Introduction to Solid State Physics(John Wiley & Sons, 2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    Ashcroft and N

    N. Ashcroft and N. Mermin,Solid State Physics(Cen- gage Learning, 2011)

    2011

  33. [42]

    M. J. DelloStritto, A. D. Kaplan, J. P. Perdew, and M. L. Klein, APL Materials11, 10.1063/5.0146967 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0146967 2023

  34. [43]

    G. A. Sawatzky and J. W. Allen, Phys. Rev. Lett.53, 2339 (1984)

    1984

  35. [44]

    J. P. Perdew and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B23, 5048 (1981)

    1981

  36. [45]

    F. Tran, D. Koller, and P. Blaha, Physical Review B86, 10.1103/physrevb.86.134406 (2012)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.86.134406 2012

  37. [46]

    Doubble, S

    R. Doubble, S. M. Hayden, P. Dai, H. A. Mook, J. R. Thompson, and C. D. Frost, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 027207 (2010)

    2010

  38. [47]

    Zhang, J

    X. Zhang, J.-X. Xiong, and A. Zunger, npj Computa- tional Materials10, 10.1038/s41524-024-01382-8 (2024). 8 Supplemental Information: Identifying strong correlation using only the Kohn-Sham density of one-electron states Daniel D. Rivera, 1,2 Gustavo M. Dalpian,2 John P. Perdew1 1 Department of Physics and Engineering Physics, Tulane University, New Orlea...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41524-024-01382-8 2024

  39. [48]

    Hohenberg and W

    P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev.136, B864 (1964)

    1964

  40. [49]

    Kohn and L

    W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Physical Review140, A1133–A1138 (1965)

    1965

  41. [50]

    J. W. Furness, A. D. Kaplan, J. Ning, J. P. Perdew, and J. Sun, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters11, 8208–8215 (2020)

    2020

  42. [51]

    Kresse and D

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

    1999

  43. [52]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B48, 13115 (1993)

    1993

  44. [53]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. B54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  45. [54]

    Zunger, J.-X

    A. Zunger, J.-X. Xiong, and J. P. Perdew 10.48550/ARXIV.2512.18236 (2025)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.18236 2025

  46. [55]

    J. P. Perdew, APL Computational Physics1, 10.1063/5.0283429 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0283429 2025

  47. [56]

    Maniar, K

    R. Maniar, K. P. K. Withanage, C. Shahi, A. D. Kaplan, J. P. Perdew, and M. R. Pederson, The Journal of Chemical Physics160, 144301 (2024)

    2024

  48. [57]

    Zhang, B

    R. Zhang, B. Singh, C. Lane, J. Kidd, Y. Zhang, B. Barbiellini, R. S. Markiewicz, A. Bansil, and J. Sun, Physical Review B105, 10.1103/physrevb.105.195134 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.105.195134 2022

  49. [58]

    E. X. Wang, S. V. Ushakov, L. Wang, J. Matteucci, H. Xu, E. J. Opila, Q.-J. Hong, and A. Navrotsky, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122, 10.1073/pnas.2426921122 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2426921122 2025

  50. [59]

    Zanib, M

    M. Zanib, M. Manzoor, N. Noor, M. W. Iqbal, M. Asghar, H. Hegazy, and A. Laref, Journal of Rare Earths42, 121–128 (2024)

    2024

  51. [60]

    A. Giri, C. Shahi, and A. Ruzsinszky, Phys. Rev. B112, 12515 (2025)

    2025

  52. [61]

    Mohn,Magnetism in the Solid State: An Introduction, Springer Series in Solid-State Sciences (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2002)

    P. Mohn,Magnetism in the Solid State: An Introduction, Springer Series in Solid-State Sciences (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2002)

    2002

  53. [62]

    Tong, Statistical physics (lecture notes),https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/statphys/statphys.pdf(2025), accessed: 2026-01-27

    D. Tong, Statistical physics (lecture notes),https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/statphys/statphys.pdf(2025), accessed: 2026-01-27

    2025

  54. [63]

    MacDonald, J

    A. MacDonald, J. Perdew, and S. Vosko, Solid State Communications18, 85–91 (1976)

    1976

  55. [64]

    V. L. Moruzzi, J. F. Janak, and A. R. Williams,Calculated Electronic Properties of Metals(Pergamon Press, New York, 1978)

    1978

  56. [65]

    Martin,Electronic Structure: Basic Theory and Practical Methods(Cambridge University Press, 2004)

    R. Martin,Electronic Structure: Basic Theory and Practical Methods(Cambridge University Press, 2004)

    2004