Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Novel magnetic-field-free switching behavior in vdW-magnet/oxide heterostructure

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Placing the van der Waals ferromagnet Fe3GeTe2 on an argon-milled SrTiO3 surface makes a plain in-plane current capable of switching the perpendicular magnetization at zero applied field, with the switching direction set by a persistent…

desk verdict A credible field-free SOT switching demonstration in FGT/Ar-STO with a mechanism claim that outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04235 v1 pith:S7X3VMNL submitted 2025-01-08 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.otherphysics.app-ph

Jihoon Keum , Kai-Xuan Zhang , Suik Cheon , Hyuncheol Kim , Jingyuan Cui , Giung Park , Yunyeong Chang , Miyoung Kim
show 2 more authors
Hyun-Woo Lee Je-Geun Park
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.otherphysics.app-ph
keywords field-freeswitchingFe3GeTe2SrTiO3heterostructureRashbaspin-orbitcouplinginterfacemagnetizationtorquevanderWaalsmagnetprecession-facilitatedSOT
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 claims that a current injected in the plane of a Fe3GeTe2/SrTiO3 heterostructure can switch the perpendicular magnetization of the Fe3GeTe2 layer while no external magnetic field is present. The reason, the authors argue, is that the Ar-milled SrTiO3 surface produces both a strong Rashba spin–orbit coupling and an in-plane magnetization at the interface with Fe3GeTe2; spins accumulated by the current precess around that interface magnetization and acquire an out-of-plane polarization that exerts a damping-like torque on the ferromagnet. The switching polarity is not fixed by the current direction alone but by the history of an in-plane initialization field, with a measured coercivity of about 30 Oe, which the authors take as evidence that a persistent interface moment is doing the symmetry breaking. If the mechanism is right, it makes field-free spin-orbit-torque switching accessible in a simple van der Waals magnet/oxide bilayer and at switching current densities near $6 \times 10^{10}\,\text{A/m}^2$, which would interest anyone trying to build low-power magnetic memory.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is precession-facilitated spin-orbit torque built on an interface magnetization $\mathbf{m}_{\mathrm{interface}}$. A charge current creates a Rashba spin accumulation $\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\mathrm{Rashba}}$; the interface magnetization exerts a torque $\boldsymbol{\tau}_m = \mathbf{m}_{\mathrm{interface}} \times \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\mathrm{Rashba}}$ on those spins, driving their precession so that the spins injected into Fe3GeTe2 acquire an out-of-plane component $\sigma_z$. This out-of-plane spin polarization acts as a damping-like torque that deterministically switches the perpendicular magnetization, with the switching polarity controlled by the sign of $\mathbf{m}_{\mathrm{interface}}$.

What would settle it

Directly probe the Fe3GeTe2/SrTiO3 interface after removing an in-plane field, for example with X-ray magnetic circular dichroism on a stack thinned enough for the probe to reach the interface; if no in-plane moment remains at zero field, or if its reversal does not track the ~30 Oe polarity-coercivity, the precession mechanism is not the cause of the switching.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that current-induced perpendicular magnetization switching at zero external field occurs in Fe3GeTe2/SrTiO3 heterostructures because the Ar-milled SrTiO3 surface provides a large Rashba spin–orbit coupling and, at the Fe3GeTe2/SrTiO3 interface, an emergent in-plane magnetization exists whose direction can be set ("initialized") by an in-plane magnetic field and persists after the field is removed. When a charge current flows, the Rashba-accumulated spins polarized in-plane precess around this interface magnetization, producing a net out-of-plane spin polarization; this polarization then exerts a damping-like spin-orbit torque on the Fe3GeTe2 layer and switches its perpendicular magnetization deterministically, with the polarity set by the direction of the interface magnetization. Evidence includes the current-driven hysteretic switching without a field, the opposite shifts of anomalous Hall loops for opposite current directions, the absence of switching in Fe3GeTe2/SiO2 and in Fe3GeTe2 on untreated SrTiO3, and the reversal of switching polarity upon in-plane field initialization with a ~30 Oe coercivity. The authors further show that the effect disappears in Fe3GeTe2 flakes outside roughly 9–15 nm thickness, pointing to the interfacial origin of the switching.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a persistent in-plane magnetization exists at the Fe3GeTe2/Ar-milled SrTiO3 interface, can be aligned by an in-plane magnetic field, and remains aligned after the field is removed; the authors state that they could not measure this moment directly with X-ray magnetic circular dichroism and instead rely on transport evidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fe3GeTe2 flakes 9–15 nm thick on Ar-milled SrTiO3 can be switched by in-plane current alone at zero field, with a critical switching current density down to about $6 \times 10^{10}\,\text{A/m}^2$.
  • The switching polarity is controlled by the direction of a previously applied in-plane magnetic field and reverses only when that field exceeds about 30 Oe, so the interface magnetization acts as a rewritable memory of the initialization direction.
  • No field-free switching appears in Fe3GeTe2/SiO2 or Fe3GeTe2 on untreated SrTiO3, and not in Fe3GeTe2 flakes outside the roughly 9–15 nm thickness window, indicating the effect is tied to the Ar-milled oxide interface rather than to the Fe3GeTe2 alone.
  • The anomalous Hall loop shift direction flips with the sign of the writing current, proving that the current produces a preferred out-of-plane direction rather than mere heating or domain noise.
  • The precession-torque scheme, previously requiring a ferromagnet/spacer/in-plane-ferromagnet stack, can be realized with a single interface that supplies its own in-plane moment, simplifying the device geometry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extending the paper's mechanism to other van der Waals magnets, one would expect field-free switching to appear whenever a conducting oxide surface can host both a Rashba splitting and a persistent in-plane interface moment; a systematic control experiment changing the oxide while keeping Fe3GeTe2 would test this directly.
  • Because the authors could not directly probe the interface moment, a thinner-Fe3GeTe2 variant that lets X-rays reach the interface could look for the predicted remanent in-plane magnetization and its ~30 Oe switching field, testing the central premise.
  • The paper's transport data cannot fully distinguish a field-like torque from a damping-like torque in the anomalous Hall loop shift; a harmonic Hall-voltage measurement on the same devices would separate the two and place the precession picture on firmer footing.
  • If the interface moment is defect-driven, its magnitude and coercivity should depend on Ar-milling power and duration, so tuning the etching conditions offers a practical knob for lowering the switching current further.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports magnetic-field-free, current-induced perpendicular magnetization switching in exfoliated Fe3GeTe2 devices on an Ar-milled SrTiO3 surface. The empirical core is a set of transport measurements: writing-current sweeps produce hysteretic Rxy loops at zero field in multiple devices; control devices on SiO2, on non-milled STO, with thick FGT, and above Tc show no such switching; and AHE loops shift oppositely for opposite current directions. The authors attribute the effect to a precession-facilitated spin-orbit torque: Rashba spin accumulation at the FGT/STO interface precesses around an emergent in-plane interface magnetization m_interface, yielding an out-of-plane spin polarization that switches the perpendicular FGT magnetization. They further show that the switching polarity reverses after initialization with opposite in-plane fields and exhibits a ~30 Oe hysteresis, which they interpret as evidence for a persistent in-plane interface magnetization.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism is correct, the work would establish a new route to field-free SOT switching using a vdW magnet/oxide interface, with a reported critical current density of ~6e10 A/m2 that is competitive with prior art. The empirical switching observation itself is well supported: the inclusion of multiple devices, several control samples, and temperature/thickness dependence gives confidence that the zero-field switching is genuine and interfacial. The 'precession-facilitated SOT' interpretation, however, rests on an unmeasured interface magnetization and a schematic precession argument, with no quantitative model. The paper's headline claim is therefore only partially supported by the evidence presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [SI Note 3] The existence and persistence of the in-plane interface magnetization m_interface is the load-bearing premise of the mechanism, yet SI Note 3 concedes that XMCD detection was not possible and offers only transport inference: the switching-polarity reversal (Fig. 4a/b), the ~30 Oe coercivity of that reversal, and a ~20 Oe exchange-bias asymmetry. These observations establish history-dependent symmetry breaking, but they do not uniquely identify a static in-plane magnetization. A canted interfacial FGT moment or an exchange-bias-like coupling could produce the same transport signatures. Because m_interface is inferred from the same polarity-switching behavior it is invoked to explain, the mechanism claim is partly circular. The authors should either provide a direct probe of m_interface or a quantitative model whose predictions (polarity, coercivity, AHE loop shift) can be tested against the data without invoking m_interface ad hoc.
  2. [Figure 3b] The precession step from in-plane Rashba spin accumulation to out-of-plane spin polarization is asserted but not quantified. No spin-diffusion or spin-precession calculation is given to show that a y-polarized spin current obtains a substantial z-component while traversing the FGT/STO interface region. The torque tau_m = m_interface x sigma_Rashba merely describes the precession axis; the accumulated precession angle depends on the exchange field strength, the interface dwell time, and the spin diffusion length, none of which are estimated. If the precession efficiency is small, the proposed damping-like torque with out-of-plane polarization would be too weak to switch FGT, and the observed switching would need an alternative explanation. The authors should provide at least an order-of-magnitude estimate of the precession angle or a microscopic model supporting the 'ultimate out-of-plane spin polarization' claim.
  3. [Figure 4b] The switching-polarity hysteresis loop in Fig. 4b is central evidence for the magnetization-like behavior of m_interface, but it appears to be a single representative sweep without error bars or multiple reproducibility tests. The coercivity is only ~30 Oe, and the switching itself is stochastic (random peaks are acknowledged in SI Note 2). A single sweep cannot exclude that the polarity change is caused by a spurious field history effect or by partial magnetization reorientation in FGT. The authors should show multiple repeats of the polarity hysteresis and quantify the reproducibility, especially because the entire interpretation depends on this loop.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 2b/f captions] The captions for Fig. 2b and 2f contain contradictory device labels ('device 1 ... for device 3' and 'device 2 ... for device 1'), which obscures which device the data come from. Please correct these captions.
  2. [SI Note 3] SI Note 3 point (2) refers to 'Figures 3e and S5' for the exchange-bias effect, but there is no Figure 3e in the main text; the relevant figure appears to be Figure 2e. Please update the cross-reference.
  3. [Main text, Discussion] The sentence 'Our novel approach unitizes the large Rashba spin-orbit coupling' contains a typo; 'unitizes' should be 'utilizes'.
  4. [Main text, Figure 2f] The AHE loop shift of 14.6 Oe is reported without an uncertainty or repeated measurement; given that the loop width is of similar order, a quantitative statement of significance would strengthen the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the field-free switching data are self-contained and the proposed interface-magnetism mechanism is an underdetermined interpretation, not a derivation from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than formal: it measures current-induced field-free switching, AHE loop shifts, and switching-polarity hysteresis after in-plane field initialization. No parameter is fitted and then relabeled as a prediction, and no equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to explain. The proposed in-plane interface magnetization m_interface is inferred from the transport observations (main text: 'This implies that the device has an inherent in-plane interface magnetization, probably near the FGT/STO interface'; SI Note 3 concedes XMCD detection was not possible), and it is then used as the physical basis for the precession mechanism. This is an inference-to-the-best-explanation with limited independent confirmation, which is a correctness or interpretation risk, but it is not circular in the formal sense used here: the switching-polarity change is a genuine consequence of the hypothesis that was not inserted into the hypothesis by construction. The self-citations to prior FGT SOT work (refs 21, 23, 24) support only the premise that bare FGT has no preferred switching direction; that premise is independently backed in this paper by the FGT/SiO2 control device showing no field-free switching. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. Thus the central empirical claim is self-contained and no claimed prediction reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central empirical observation (field-free switching) does not depend on fitted parameters; it rests on transport data and control devices. The proposed explanation, however, introduces an unmeasured interface magnetization and a schematic precession torque without quantitative support, so the mechanism part of the claim carries the bulk of the unproven axioms.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Ar-milled STO surface is conducting and supports large Rashba spin-orbit coupling and spin-charge conversion.
    Invoked in the introduction to justify using Ar-milled STO as the spin-current source; based on cited prior work [28-30], not characterized in situ for these devices.
  • ad hoc to paper An in-plane interface magnetization m_interface exists at the FGT/STO interface and persists after removal of the external field.
    Main text and SI Note 3 infer it from transport data; direct XMCD detection is stated to be impossible; this is the load-bearing premise for the proposed mechanism.
  • ad hoc to paper The torque tau_m = m_interface x sigma_Rashba makes accumulated spins precess and converts in-plane spin accumulation into out-of-plane spin polarization.
    Proposed mechanism in Figure 3b and Discussion; no quantitative calculation or independent measurement of the out-of-plane polarization is provided.
  • domain assumption Anomalous Hall resistance Rxy measured in the Hall bar corresponds to the perpendicular magnetization of FGT.
    Standard AHE assumption used to read out magnetization; not independently calibrated in this paper.
invented entities (1)
  • In-plane interface magnetization m_interface at the FGT/Ar-milled STO interface
    purpose: Provides the symmetry-breaking and precession axis needed to convert Rashba in-plane spin accumulation into out-of-plane spin polarization for field-free switching, and explains polarity control by in-plane field initialization.
    Never measured directly; inferred from switching polarity hysteresis and a weak exchange bias (~20 Oe). STEM/EDS shows Ar-milling damage but cannot prove magnetism. The entity is introduced to explain the observed switching polarity control.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Novel magnetic-field-free switching behavior in vdW-magnet/oxide heterostructure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S7X3VMNL

@misc{pith2026250104235,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Novel magnetic-field-free switching behavior in vdW-magnet/oxide heterostructure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S7X3VMNL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04235}
}
read the original abstract

Magnetization switching by charge current without a magnetic field is essential for device applications and information technology. It generally requires a current-induced out-of-plane spin polarization beyond the capability of conventional ferromagnet/heavy-metal systems, where the current-induced spin polarization aligns in-plane orthogonal to the in-plane charge current and out-of-plane spin current. Here, we demonstrate a new approach for magnetic-field-free switching by fabricating a van-der-Waals magnet and oxide Fe3GeTe2/SrTiO3 heterostructure. This new magnetic-field-free switching is possible because the current-driven accumulated spins at the Rashba interface precess around an emergent interface magnetism, eventually producing an ultimate out-of-plane spin polarization. This interpretation is further confirmed by the switching polarity change controlled by the in-plane initialization magnetic fields with clear hysteresis. We successfully combined van-der-Waals magnet and oxide for the first time, especially taking advantage of spin-orbit torque on the SrTiO3 oxide. This allows us to establish a new way of magnetic field-free switching. Our work demonstrates an unusual perpendicular switching application of large spin Hall angle materials and precession of accumulated spins, and in doing so, opens up a new field and opportunities for van-der-Waals magnets and oxide spintronics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04235 by the authors.

Figure 4
Figure 4. Experimental results of the switching polarity change. a) Left panel for measurement schematic: First, we initialize the system by applying an in-plane magnetic field of a 0 → Bext → 0 sequence. Second, we sweep the writing current under a zero magnetic field to measure field-free switching. The black arrows indicate the Bext, i.e., the peak value of the applied magnetic field of 8 kOe. Circles indicate the starting… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. G. Park, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2016, 28, 301001

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    K. S. Burch, D. Mandrus, J. G. Park, Nature 2018, 563, 47

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    C. Gong, X. Zhang, Science 2019, 363, eaav4450

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Gibertini, M

    M. Gibertini, M. Koperski, A. F. Morpurgo, K. S. Novoselov, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2019, 14, 408

    2019

  5. [5]

    C. Yun, H. Guo, Z. Lin, L. Peng, Z. Liang, M. Meng, B. Zhang, Z. Zhao, L. Wang, Y . Ma, Y . Liu, W. Li, S. Ning, Y . Hou, J. Yang, Z. Luo, Sci. Adv. 2023, 9, eadj3955

    work page 2023

  6. [7]

    I. M. Miron, K. Garello, G. Gaudin, P. -J. Zermatten, M. V . Costache, S. Auffret, S. Bandiera, B. Rodmacq, A. Schuhl, P. Gambardella, Nature 2011, 476, 189

    work page 2011

  7. [8]

    L. Liu, C. Zhou, X. Shu, C. Li, T. Zhao, W. Lin, J. Deng, Q. Xie, S. Chen, J. Zhou, R. Guo, H. Wang, J. Yu, S. Shi, P. Yang, S. Pennycook, A. Manchon, J. Chen, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2021, 16, 277

    work page 2021

  8. [9]

    Zheng, Y

    Z. Zheng, Y . Zhang, V . Lopez-Dominguez, L. Sanchez -Tejerina, J. Shi, X. Feng, L. Chen, Z. Wang, Z. Zhang, K. Zhang, B. Hong, Y . Xu, Y . Zhang, M. Carpentieri, A. Fert, G. Finocchio, W. Zhao, P. Khalili Amiri, Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 4555

    work page 2021

Show all 43 references
  1. [10]

    Fukami, C

    S. Fukami, C. Zhang, S. DuttaGupta, A. Kurenkov, H. Ohno, Nat. Mater. 2016, 15, 535

    2016

  2. [11]

    C. Cao, S. Chen, R. C. Xiao, Z. Zhu, G. Yu, Y . Wang, X. Qiu, L. Liu, T. Zhao, D. F. Shao, Y . Xu, J. Chen, Q. Zhan, Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 5873

    2023

  3. [12]

    Zhang, H

    K.-X. Zhang, H. Xu, J. Keum, X. Wang, M. Liu, Z. Chen, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2024, 36, 235801

    2024

  4. [13]

    V . P. Amin, J. Zemen, M. D. Stiles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2018, 121, 136805

    2018

  5. [14]

    J. U. Lee, S. Lee, J. H. Ryoo, S. Kang, T. Y . Kim, P. Kim, C. H. Park, J. G. Park, H. Cheong, Nano Lett. 2016, 16, 7433

    2016

  6. [15]

    Huang, G

    B. Huang, G. Clark, E. Navarro -Moratalla, D. R. Klein, R. Cheng, K. L. Seyler, D. Zhong, E. Schmidgall, M. A. McGuire, D. H. Cobden, W. Yao, D. Xiao, P. Jarillo - Herrero, X. Xu, Nature 2017, 546, 270

    2017

  7. [16]

    C. Gong, L. Li, Z. Li, H. Ji, A. Stern, Y . Xia, T. Cao, W. Bao, C. Wang, Y . Wang, Z. Q. Qiu, R. J. Cava, S. G. Louie, J. Xia, X. Zhang, Nature 2017, 546, 265

    2017

  8. [17]

    S. Kang, K. Kim, B. H. Kim, J. Kim, K. I. Sim, J. -U. Lee, S. Lee, K. Park, S. Yun, T. Kim, A. Nag, A. Walters, M. Garcia-Fernandez, J. Li, L. Chapon, K.-J. Zhou, Y .-W. Son, J. H. Kim, H. Cheong, J.-G. Park, Nature 2020, 583, 785

    2020

  9. [19]

    Alghamdi, M

    M. Alghamdi, M. Lohmann, J. Li, P. R. Jothi, Q. Shao, M. Aldosary, T. Su, B. P. T. Fokwa, J. Shi, Nano Lett. 2019, 19, 4400

    2019

  10. [20]

    I. Shin, W. J. Cho, E.-S. An, S. Park, H.-W. Jeong, S. Jang, W. J. Baek, S. Y . Park, D.- H. Yang, J. H. Seo, G.-Y . Kim, M. N. Ali, S.-Y . Choi, H.-W. Lee, J. S. Kim, S. D. Kim, G.-H. Lee, Adv. Mater. 2022, 34, 2101730

    2022

  11. [22]

    Zhang, H

    K.-X. Zhang, H. Ju, H. Kim, J. Cui, J. Keum, J. G. Park, J. S. Lee, Adv. Mater. 2024, 36, 2312824. 14

    2024

  12. [23]

    Zhang, Y

    K. Zhang, Y . Lee, M. J. Coak, J. Kim, S. Son, I. Hwang, D. S. Ko, Y . Oh, I. Jeon, D. Kim, C. Zeng, H. W. Lee, J. G. Park, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2105992

    2021

  13. [24]

    Cui, K.-X

    J. Cui, K.-X. Zhang, J. G. Park, Adv. Electron. Mater. 2024, 10, 2400041

    2024

  14. [25]

    Y . Liu, G. Shi, D. Kumar, T. Kim, S. Shi, D. Yang, J. Zhang, C. Zhang, F. Wang, S. Yang, Y . Pu, P. Yu, K. Cai, H. Yang, Nat. Electron. 2023, 6, 732

    2023

  15. [27]

    J. Ryu, R. Thompson, J. Y . Park, S.-J. Kim, G. Choi, J. Kang, H. B. Jeong, M. Kohda, J. M. Yuk, J. Nitta, K.-J. Lee, B.-G. Park, Nat. Electron. 2022, 5, 217

    2022

  16. [28]

    M. J. Jin, D. S. Um, K. Ohnishi, S. Komori, N. Stelmashenko, D. Choe, J. W. Yoo, J. W. A. Robinson, Nano Lett. 2021, 21, 6511

    2021

  17. [29]

    Y . Wang, P. Deorani, X. Qiu, J. H. Kwon, H. Yang, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2014, 105, 152412

    2014

  18. [30]

    D. W. Reagor, V . Y . Butko, Nat. Mater. 2005, 4, 593

    2005

  19. [31]

    J. S. Lee, Y . W. Xie, H. K. Sato, C. Bell, Y . Hikita, H. Y . Hwang, C. C. Kao, Nat. Mater. 2013, 12, 703

    2013

  20. [32]

    J. A. Bert, B. Kalisky, C. Bell, M. Kim, Y . Hikita, H. Y . Hwang, K. A. Moler, Nat. Phys. 2011, 7, 767

    2011

  21. [33]

    Y . W. Oh, J. Ryu, J. Kang, B. G. Park, Adv. Electron. Mater. 2019, 5, 1900598

    2019

  22. [34]

    Hwang, M

    I. Hwang, M. J. Coak, N. Lee, D.-S. Ko, Y . Oh, I. Jeon, S. Son, K. Zhang, J. Kim, J.-G. Park, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2019, 31, 50LT01

    2019

  23. [35]

    J. Kim, S. Son, M. J. Coak, I. Hwang, Y . Lee, K. Zhang, J.-G. Park, J. Appl. Phys. 2020, 128, 093901. 15 Figures Figure 1. Fabrication process for the FGT/SrTiO 3(001) heterostructure and its prototypical ferromagnetic behaviors . a-d) A two -dimensional surface conducting la...

    2020

  24. [36]

    Supporting Notes 1-4

  25. [37]

    Supporting Figures S1- S16

  26. [38]

    Experimental evidences/facts for validating the field-free switching

    Supporting References 2 Supporting Notes Note 1. Experimental evidences/facts for validating the field-free switching. We summarise several of the most important experimental evidence and facts that strengthen and validate our field-free switching contents as follows: (1) We h...

  27. [39]

    It demonstrates the reproducibility of the anomalous Hall loop shifts

    a-b) Anomalous Hall Loops at 120 K under a DC current of 0.1 mA (red) and -0.1 mA (blue) in (a), and 3.6 mA(red) and -3.6 mA (blue) in (b). It demonstrates the reproducibility of the anomalous Hall loop shifts. 13 Figure S 6. 𝑅𝑥𝑥 -𝑇 curve in Ar -etched SrTiO 3. It shows a meta...

  28. [40]

    G. Yu, P. Upadhyaya, Y . Fan, J. G. Alzate, W. Jiang, K. L. Wong, S. Takei, S. A. Bender, L. T. Chang, Y . Jiang, M. Lang, J. Tang, Y . Wang, Y . Tserkovnyak, P. K. Amiri, K. L. Wang, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2014, 9, 548

    2014

  29. [41]

    I. H. Kao, R. Muzzio, H. Zhang, M. Zhu, J. Gobbo, S. Yuan, D. Weber, R. Rao, J. Li, J. H. Edgar, J. E. Goldberger, J. Yan, D. G. Mandrus, J. Hwang, R. Cheng, J. Katoch, S. Singh, Nat. Mater. 2022, 21, 1029

    2022

  30. [42]

    S. N. Kajale, T. Nguyen, N. T. Hung, M. Li, D. Sarkar, Sci. Adv. 2024, 10, eadk8669

    2024

  31. [43]

    A. D. Rata, J. Herrero-Martin, I. V . Maznichenko, F. M. Chiabrera, R. T. Dahm, S. Ostanin, D. Lee, B. Jalan, P. Buczek, I. Mertig, A. Ernst, A. M. Ionescu, K. Dörr, N. Pryds, D. -S. Park, APL Materials 2022, 10, 091108

    2022

  32. [44]

    H. Wang, H. Wu, J. Zhang, Y . Liu, D. Chen, C. Pandey, J. Yin, D. Wei, N. Lei, S. Shi, H. Lu, P. Li, A. Fert, K. L. Wang, T. Nie, W. Zhao, Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 5173

    2023

  33. [45]

    Zhang, S

    K. Zhang, S. Han, Y . Lee, M. J. Coak, J. Kim, I. Hwang, S. Son, J. Shin, M. Lim, D. Jo, K. Kim, D. Kim, H. W. Lee, J. G. Park, Adv. Mater. 2021, 33, 2004110

    2021

  34. [46]

    X. Wang, J. Tang, X. Xia, C. He, J. Zhang, Y . Liu, C. Wan, C. Fang, C. Guo, W. Yang, Y . Guang, X. Zhang, H. Xu, J. Wei, M. Liao, X. Lu, J. Feng, X. Li, Y . Peng, H. Wei, R. Yang, D. Shi, X. Zhang, Z. Han, Z. Zhang, G. Zhang, G. Yu, X. Han, Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaaw8904

    2019

  35. [47]

    I. Shin, W. J. Cho, E.-S. An, S. Park, H.-W. Jeong, S. Jang, W. J. Baek, S. Y . Park, D.-H. Yang, J. H. Seo, G.-Y . Kim, M. N. Ali, S.-Y . Choi, H.-W. Lee, J. S. Kim, S. D. Kim, G.-H. Lee, Adv. Mater. 2022, 34, 2101730

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.