Nano light-source generation by electron beam irradiation of CsPbBr3/Cs4PbBr6 composites

Hikaru Saito; Keiichirou Akiba; Kotaro Kihara; Midori Ikeuchi; Sotatsu Yanagimoto; Takumi Sannomiya; Tetsuya Kubota

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 7 references

Nano light-source generation by electron beam irradiation of CsPbBr3/Cs4PbBr6 composites

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A focused electron beam can locally create green-emitting CsPbBr3 nanoparticles in a CsPbBr3/Cs4PbBr6 composite film, enabling direct-write placement of nano light sources.

desk verdict A clear empirical observation of electron-beam-written perovskite emission, with a mechanistic explanation that outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.11916 v1 pith:63B7HNQP submitted 2025-08-16 physics.optics cond-mat.mes-hall

Hikaru Saito , Kotaro Kihara , Midori Ikeuchi , Sotatsu Yanagimoto , Tetsuya Kubota , Keiichirou Akiba , Takumi Sannomiya This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.opticscond-mat.mes-hall

keywords halideperovskiteCsPbBr3/Cs4PbBr6compositecathodoluminescenceelectron-beamdirectwritingnanolight-sourcepatterningnanoparticlenucleationscanningtransmissionelectronmicroscopy

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 tightly focused electron beam can act as a direct-write pen for nanoscale light sources in a halide perovskite film. In a thermally evaporated CsPbBr3/Cs4PbBr6 composite, continuous irradiation at one spot more than doubles the intensity of the 515 nm green emission from CsPbBr3 nanoparticles, while the violet emission from impurity Pb2+ ions in the Cs4PbBr6 phase fades. The authors interpret this as electron-beam-driven formation of new CsPbBr3 nanocrystals that consume excess Pb2+ in the surrounding Cs4PbBr6 matrix. Because the change stays localized, they use a 1 nA beam to draw the letters "FENO" as bright regions visible in cathodoluminescence mapping. If the interpretation holds, this offers a position-controlled route to placing perovskite emitters in photonic circuits.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two cathodoluminescence bands that behave oppositely under irradiation: green Peak 1 (~515 nm) from CsPbBr3 nanoparticles and violet Peak 2 (~375 nm) from Pb2+ ions sitting on Cs+ sites in Cs4PbBr6. As Peak 2 falls, Peak 1 rises, which the authors read as electron-beam-driven conversion of the Cs4PbBr6 matrix's excess Pb2+ into new CsPbBr3 nanocrystals; the unchanged Peak 1 wavelength and width, together with lattice-mismatch strain, indicate that new particles form rather than old ones growing. An electrostatic dose modulator allows the same electron beam to write at high current and map at low current, which makes the localisation and patterning demonstrations po

What would settle it

After CL brightening, image the exact irradiated spot by high-resolution TEM/EELS: if no new CsPbBr3 nanocrystals appear in the ~300 nm brightened region, or if the Cs4PbBr6 phase still contains the same Pb2+ impurity concentration, the nucleation mechanism is wrong. A simpler cross-check is to write a pattern on a film whose Cs4PbBr6 phase has no excess Pb2+ (no Peak 2); if brightening still occurs, the proposed stoichiometry conversion is not the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a focused electron beam can generate halide perovskite nanoparticle light sources at chosen positions. In a thermally evaporated CsPbBr3/Cs4PbBr6 composite film, the paper shows that stationary electron irradiation increases the 515 nm cathodoluminescence peak by more than a factor of two and suppresses a ~375 nm peak attributed to Pb2+ impurities in Cs4PbBr6; the rise time is about 13 s and the fall time about 5 s. The authors interpret this as formation of new CsPbBr3 nanoparticles that consume excess Pb2+ in the surrounding Cs4PbBr6 phase, with the unchanged peak position and width indicating that existing particles do not grow because of lattice strain. CL mappi

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the rise of the green peak and fall of the violet peak are caused by electron-beam-driven nucleation of CsPbBr3 nanoparticles from Pb2+ in Cs4PbBr6, not by defect passivation, charging, heating, or beam-induced contamination.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Continuous 125 pA irradiation at a spot more than doubles the 515 nm green CL peak with a relaxation time of 13.1 ± 1.5 s, while the 375 nm impurity peak decays with 5.2 ± 2.6 s.
The intensity increase is localised to roughly a 300 nm radius, so the method can place emitters at submicron positions.
A 1 nA beam stepping at 50 nm with 1 s dwells draws the pattern "FENO", visible in CL maps taken at low probe current.
The unchanged peak wavelength and linewidth during brightening indicate the written emitters are CsPbBr3 nanoparticles of similar size, with strain limiting growth.
The method is compatible with existing electron beam lithography workflows for nanophotonic device fabrication.

Reading between the lines

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

If the nucleation interpretation is right, the write process is a local stoichiometry change, so the number density of written emitters should scale with local Pb2+ excess and electron dose; a dose-series CL study could turn this into a quantitative writing rule.
A natural next test is single-emitter characterisation of a written spot: if freshly nucleated CsPbBr3 particles are small enough, Hanbury Brown-Twiss interferometry could determine whether the written regions behave as single-photon sources, which the paper does not claim.
Because the brightened region is much wider than the electron probe, thermal or diffusive transport is implicated; varying substrate thermal conductivity or using pulsed beams would separate heating from direct electron-impact chemistry.
The anti-correlated Peak 1/Peak 2 pair could be used in situ as a stoichiometry meter, watching the Cs4PbBr6 matrix convert to CsPbBr3 while writing.

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

The new thing here is real: a focused electron beam locally and controllably brightens the green cathodoluminescence of a CsPbBr3/Cs4PbBr6 composite, and they can draw the letters “FENO” with submicron lines. That is a striking demonstration and, as far as I can tell from the references, new. The dose modulator lets them map with a low probe current without washing out the effect, and the peak wavelength/width staying constant is a reasonable indirect argument that existing particles are not growing. The citation pattern is fine; the self-citations to their own CL instrument and prior assignment are legitimate.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test puts it: the claim that new CsPbBr3 nanoparticles are “generated” is inferred from the CL spectra, not shown by any post-irradiation structural measurement. The anti-correlation between Peak 1 growth and Peak 2 decay is suggestive, but the two fitted time constants (13.1±1.5 s and 5.2±2.6 s) overlap at the 2σ level, so “preceding” is not statistically established from a single spot. No control experiments exclude beam heating, charging, defect passivation, halogen migration, or contamination. The ~300 nm modified radius is attributed to heating, but there is no thermal control. These are all addressable, but right now the title’s “generation” overstates what is shown. Also, reference 37 appears in the list but is never cited in the text; the authors should clean that up.

I would not call the central observation into doubt. The intensity more than doubles, the spatial map shows a localized bright spot, and the letter pattern is unambiguous. The mechanism is the weak link, not the effect. For a serious referee, the paper is worth sending out: the empirical result is novel and the demonstration is convincing enough to warrant the effort of tightening the claims. The referee should push for either structural evidence (post-irradiation STEM/EELS) or a more modest wording like “activation” instead of “generation.”

My take: conditional accept after revision, with the mechanism claim tempered. I would not cite it in my own work until that is resolved, but I would bring it to a reading group as a good example of a clean, well-demonstrated effect with an overreaching interpretation.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports cathodoluminescence (CL) experiments on thermally evaporated CsPbBr3/Cs4PbBr6 composite films. The authors observe that continuous electron-beam irradiation at a fixed spot increases the intensity of the green CL peak at ~515 nm (assigned to CsPbBr3 nanoparticles) by more than a factor of two, while decreasing a second peak at ~375 nm (assigned to Pb2+ impurities in Cs4PbBr6). They interpret this anti-correlation as evidence that electron irradiation consumes impurity Pb2+ ions and forms new CsPbBr3 nanoparticles. Pre-irradiation followed by low-current CL mapping shows a brightened region with a radius of roughly 300 nm. A high-current beam is used to draw the letters 'FENO' in CL intensity maps. The authors conclude that electron beams can generate nano light-sources at desired positions in this composite, with potential compatibility with electron-beam lithography.

Significance. If the mechanistic claim holds, the work would offer a direct-write, position-controlled method for creating halide-perovskite nano-emitters, which is a genuinely useful capability for integrated photonics and quantum-optics applications. The paper contains credible, well-presented CL data, including dose-modulated mapping and a clear patterning demonstration. The use of EELS to confirm the composite phase and the careful wavelength/width analysis of the CL peak are strengths. However, the central 'generation' claim is an inference from CL spectral changes alone; no post-irradiation structural characterization is presented. The practical observation of e-beam-induced brightening and patterning is solid, but the mechanistic novelty of nanoparticle formation is not yet established.

major comments (4)

[§ Interpretation of Fig. 2, p. 6] The central claim that electron irradiation generates new CsPbBr3 nanoparticles is inferred solely from the temporal evolution of two CL peaks. This is a load-bearing inference, as the title, abstract, and summary all state 'generation' rather than mere intensity enhancement. The alternative explanations of defect passivation, charging, local heating, halogen migration, or carbon contamination are not excluded. No post-irradiation TEM, EELS, EDX, or diffraction is shown to confirm the appearance of new CsPbBr3 nanoparticles. Please provide direct structural evidence, or substantially reframe the conclusions to claim e-beam-induced CL enhancement rather than nanoparticle formation.
[Fig. 2(e)–(f), time constants] The claim that 'the intensity decrease of Peak 2 preceding the increase of the Peak 1 intensity' is not statistically supported. The reported relaxation times are τ1 = 13.1 ± 1.5 s and τ2 = 5.2 ± 2.6 s. At the 95% level (the stated reliability), the two intervals are 10.1–16.1 s and 0.0–10.4 s, which overlap almost completely. Moreover, the data come from a single spot with no replicate traces or error bars on the intensity time series. A more careful statistical treatment, or repeated measurements, is needed before interpreting the temporal ordering as causal evidence for a reaction pathway.
[§ CL mapping, Fig. 3(a)–(b)] The spatial extent of the modification is used to argue for a long-range thermal effect ('more than one order of magnitude wider than the irradiation electron probe diameter'), which then supports the proposed mechanism. However, no thermal control experiment is provided, and the reported geometry is ambiguous: the text states 'a radius of approximately 300 nm' and then 'corresponding to the half width of ~300 nm in diameter.' The radial profile in Fig. 3(b) should be quantified with a clear definition of the modified radius and the background level. Without a control (e.g., irradiation under different beam currents or on a different film thickness), the inferred heating range remains speculative.
[Fig. 4, patterning demonstration] The 'FENO' pattern demonstrates that the brightening can be localized, but it does not independently establish that new nanoparticles are formed. The unchanged peak wavelength and width (Figs. 2(g)–(h), S1) are presented as evidence against growth of existing particles, but they do not prove nucleation of new particles—an ensemble of unchanged existing particles could also produce the same spectral response if the enhancement arises from passivation or emission-yield changes. Please provide direct evidence that the brightened areas contain a higher density or new population of CsPbBr3 nanoparticles.

minor comments (4)

[Fig. 2 caption/p. 6] The reference to 'Figs. 2(c), 2(d) and 2(f)' for the decrease of Peak 2 is inconsistent with the caption; (c) and (d) are intensity-magnified profiles and (f) is the time trace. Also check the sentence 'corresponding to the half width of ~300 nm in diameter'—radius and diameter are conflated.
[General notation] Use consistent notation for probe current (125 pA, 1 pA, 5 pA, 1 nA) and specify dwell times in all maps. The probe diameter '1~2 nm' should be '1–2 nm'.
[References] Ref. 24 is the authors' own instrument paper; please make explicit in the text which components are newly added or modified relative to that work, to clarify the novelty of the dose-modulation capability.
[Supplementary Fig. S2] The single-pixel bright spots are described as 'sub-nanoscale heterogeneity,' but the pixel size is 60 nm. This wording is confusing; 'sub-pixel' or 'smaller than the pixel size' would be clearer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation; empirical CL observations stand independent. Minor non-load-bearing self-citations exist but do not force the conclusion.

full rationale

This is an empirical cathodoluminescence study, not a derivation chain. The central observations—Peak 1 brightening, Peak 2 fading, ~300 nm modified radius, and the 'FENO' patterning—are direct measurements. The mechanism claim is explicitly hedged: 'The intensity decrease of Peak 2 preceding the increase of the Peak 1 intensity suggests that CsPbBr3 nanoparticles are formed.' That is an inductive interpretation of correlated spectral changes, not an equation-level reduction where an output is defined as its input. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the exponential relaxation times are descriptive fits, not forecast quantities. Self-citations appear for the dose-modulator instrument (ref 24) and for prior CL assignment of the 515 nm peak (ref 31), but these are not load-bearing: the 515 nm assignment is corroborated by external references (e.g., 22, 25, 33, 34, 35), and the patterning demonstration and intensity increase do not depend on that assignment. The absence of post-irradiation TEM/EELS is a validity/support gap, not a circularity. Therefore the paper is self-contained against its empirical benchmarks, with no step that reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No invented entities are introduced. The claims rest on standard CL peak assignments and on the beam-formation interpretation. The fitted relaxation times are descriptive and not used to force the central conclusion.

free parameters (2)

Exponential relaxation time for Peak 1, tau_1 = 13.1 ± 1.5 s
Fit to the single-spot CL intensity time series in Fig. 2(e). Descriptive; the central claim does not rest on this value.
Exponential relaxation time for Peak 2, tau_2 = 5.2 ± 2.6 s
Fit to the Peak 2 decay in Fig. 2(f). Used to support the temporal-ordering interpretation, but no independent prediction is made from it.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption EELS spectral features A, B, C identify the film as a CsPbBr3/Cs4PbBr6 composite
The EELS spectrum (Fig. 1c) is matched to prior optical/EELS reports (refs 25-30); no independent phase quantitation is performed.
domain assumption Peak 1 at 515 nm is CsPbBr3 nanoparticle emission and Peak 2 at ~375 nm is Pb2+ impurity emission
Assignments are taken from prior literature (refs 31,36). The entire conversion narrative depends on these assignments.
ad hoc to paper Electron-beam-induced brightening reflects new CsPbBr3 nanoparticle formation
This is the paper's mechanistic explanation, inferred from CL peak dynamics. No post-irradiation TEM or EELS is shown to verify new particle formation.
domain assumption Low-current CL mapping (1-5 pA) does not itself modify the film
The authors state that low probe current avoids extra modification, but no control measurement confirms zero effect at map dwell times.
standard math Exponential relaxation model (I0 - I_inf)exp(-t/tau) + I_inf describes the intensity evolution
Used as a phenomenological fit to quantify time scales; no physical derivation is offered.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nano light-source generation by electron beam irradiation of CsPbBr3/Cs4PbBr6 composites." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/63B7HNQP

@misc{pith2026250811916,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nano light-source generation by electron beam irradiation of CsPbBr3/Cs4PbBr6 composites},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/63B7HNQP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.11916}
}

read the original abstract

Precise allocation of nano light-sources in photonic integrated circuits is essential for the development of next-generation optical technologies such as optical nano-circuits, quantum information processing, and quantum communication. However, controlling the position of such light sources is a challenging task. We here show that halide perovskite nanoparticle light sources can be generated at the desired positions by electron beam. We applied cathodoluminescence spectroscopy to CsPbBr3/Cs4PbBr6 composite produced by thermal evaporation and discovered that the intensity of green light emission from the CsPbBr3 nanoparticles increased with electron beam irradiation. Changes in the cathodoluminescence spectrum associated with the electron beam irradiation suggest CsPbBr3 nanoparticle formations. Furthermore, by taking advantage of the high spatial resolution and controllability of the electron beam, we demonstrate nano-light source patterning on the film.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.11916 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

7 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

[1]

Santhosh, O

1 K. Santhosh, O. Bitton, L. Chuntonov, and G. Haran, Nat. Commun. 7, 11823 (2016). 2 S. Barik, A. Karasahin, C. Flower, T. Cai, H. Miyake, W. DeGottardi, M. Hafezi, and E. Waks, Science 359, 666 (2018). 3 J. O. Orwa, C. Santori, K. M. C. Fu, B. Gibson, D. Simpson, I. Aharonovich, A. Stacey, A

work page 2016
[2]

Prawer, J. Appl. Phys. 109, 083530 (2011). 4 K. Groot-Berning, G. Jacob, C. Osterkamp, F. Jelezko, and F. Schmidt-Kaler, New J. Phys. 23, 063067 (2021). 5 I. Aharonovich, S. Castelletto, B. C. Johnson, J. C. McCallum, D. A. Simpson, A. D. Greentree, and S. Prawer, Phys. Rev. B 81, 121201(R) (2010). 6 S. Ditalia Tchernij, T. Lühmann, T. Herzig, J. Küpper, ...

work page 2011
[3]

Meijer, P. M. Genovese, and J. Forneris, ACS Photonics 5, 4864 (2018). 12 7 S. Ditalia Tchernij, T. Herzig, J. Forneris, J. Küpper, S. Pezzagna, P. Traina, E. Moreva, I. P

work page 2018
[4]

Brida, N

Degiovanni, G. Brida, N. Skukan, M. Genovese, M. Jakšić, J. Meijer, and P. Olivero, ACS Photonics 4, 10, 2580 (2017). 8 K. S. Min, K. V . Shcheglov, C. M. Yang, Harry A. Atwater, M. L. Brongersma, and A. Polman, Appl. Phys. Lett. 69, 2033 (1996). 9 Y. Maeda, Y . Terai, M. Itakura, and N. Kuwano, Thin Solid Films 461, 160 (2004). 10 D. Kan, T. Terashima, R...

work page 2017
[5]

Shimakawa, and M

Kanemitsu, Y . Shimakawa, and M. Takano, Nat. Mater. 4, 816 (2005). 11 R. Nagy, M. Niethammer, M. Widmann, Y. C. Chen, P. Udvarhelyi, C. Bonato, J. Ul Hassan, R. Karhu, I. G. Ivanov, N. T. Son, J. R. Maze, T. Ohshima, Ö. O. Soykal, Á. Gali, S. Y. Lee, F. Kaiser, and J. Wrachtrup, Nat. Commun. 10, 1954 (2019). 12 C. Fournier, A. Plaud, S. Roux, A. Pierret,...

work page 2005
[6]

Nanotechnol

Strauf, Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 1137 (2018). 19 X. K. Liu, W. Xu, S. Bai, Y . Jin, J. Wang, R. H. Friend, and F. Gao, Nat. Mater. 20, 10 (2021). 20 Y . S. Park, S. Guo, N. S. Makarov, and V . I. Klimov, ACS Nano 9, 10386 (2015). 21 L. Protesescu, S. Yakunin, M. I. Bodnarchuk, F. Krieg, R. Caputo, C. H. Hendon, R. X. Yang, A. Walsh, and M. V . Kovalenko, Nan...

work page 2018
[7]

Zazubovich, Chem. Phys. Lett. 306, 280 (1999). 30 X. Lian, X. Wang, Y . Ling, E. Lochner, L. Tan, Y . Zhou, B. Ma, K. Hanson, and H. Gao, Adv. Funct. Mater. 29, 1807345 (2018). 31 T. Kubota, S. Yanagimoto, H. Saito, K. Akiba, A. Ishii, and T. Sannomiya, Appl. Phys. Exp. 17, 015005 (2024). 32 S. Nekita, S. Yanagimoto, T. Sannomiya, K. Akiba, M. Takiguchi, ...

work page 1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Santhosh, O

1 K. Santhosh, O. Bitton, L. Chuntonov, and G. Haran, Nat. Commun. 7, 11823 (2016). 2 S. Barik, A. Karasahin, C. Flower, T. Cai, H. Miyake, W. DeGottardi, M. Hafezi, and E. Waks, Science 359, 666 (2018). 3 J. O. Orwa, C. Santori, K. M. C. Fu, B. Gibson, D. Simpson, I. Aharonovich, A. Stacey, A

work page 2016

[2] [2]

Prawer, J. Appl. Phys. 109, 083530 (2011). 4 K. Groot-Berning, G. Jacob, C. Osterkamp, F. Jelezko, and F. Schmidt-Kaler, New J. Phys. 23, 063067 (2021). 5 I. Aharonovich, S. Castelletto, B. C. Johnson, J. C. McCallum, D. A. Simpson, A. D. Greentree, and S. Prawer, Phys. Rev. B 81, 121201(R) (2010). 6 S. Ditalia Tchernij, T. Lühmann, T. Herzig, J. Küpper, ...

work page 2011

[3] [3]

Meijer, P. M. Genovese, and J. Forneris, ACS Photonics 5, 4864 (2018). 12 7 S. Ditalia Tchernij, T. Herzig, J. Forneris, J. Küpper, S. Pezzagna, P. Traina, E. Moreva, I. P

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Brida, N

Degiovanni, G. Brida, N. Skukan, M. Genovese, M. Jakšić, J. Meijer, and P. Olivero, ACS Photonics 4, 10, 2580 (2017). 8 K. S. Min, K. V . Shcheglov, C. M. Yang, Harry A. Atwater, M. L. Brongersma, and A. Polman, Appl. Phys. Lett. 69, 2033 (1996). 9 Y. Maeda, Y . Terai, M. Itakura, and N. Kuwano, Thin Solid Films 461, 160 (2004). 10 D. Kan, T. Terashima, R...

work page 2017

[5] [5]

Shimakawa, and M

Kanemitsu, Y . Shimakawa, and M. Takano, Nat. Mater. 4, 816 (2005). 11 R. Nagy, M. Niethammer, M. Widmann, Y. C. Chen, P. Udvarhelyi, C. Bonato, J. Ul Hassan, R. Karhu, I. G. Ivanov, N. T. Son, J. R. Maze, T. Ohshima, Ö. O. Soykal, Á. Gali, S. Y. Lee, F. Kaiser, and J. Wrachtrup, Nat. Commun. 10, 1954 (2019). 12 C. Fournier, A. Plaud, S. Roux, A. Pierret,...

work page 2005

[6] [6]

Nanotechnol

Strauf, Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 1137 (2018). 19 X. K. Liu, W. Xu, S. Bai, Y . Jin, J. Wang, R. H. Friend, and F. Gao, Nat. Mater. 20, 10 (2021). 20 Y . S. Park, S. Guo, N. S. Makarov, and V . I. Klimov, ACS Nano 9, 10386 (2015). 21 L. Protesescu, S. Yakunin, M. I. Bodnarchuk, F. Krieg, R. Caputo, C. H. Hendon, R. X. Yang, A. Walsh, and M. V . Kovalenko, Nan...

work page 2018

[7] [7]

Zazubovich, Chem. Phys. Lett. 306, 280 (1999). 30 X. Lian, X. Wang, Y . Ling, E. Lochner, L. Tan, Y . Zhou, B. Ma, K. Hanson, and H. Gao, Adv. Funct. Mater. 29, 1807345 (2018). 31 T. Kubota, S. Yanagimoto, H. Saito, K. Akiba, A. Ishii, and T. Sannomiya, Appl. Phys. Exp. 17, 015005 (2024). 32 S. Nekita, S. Yanagimoto, T. Sannomiya, K. Akiba, M. Takiguchi, ...

work page 1999