arxiv: 2604.18009 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el

Recognition: unknown

Magnetic-fluctuation-driven suppression of spin-orbit hybridization in the surface ferromagnet GdAg₂/Ag(111)

Ryo Noguchi , Jongkeun Jung , Younsik Kim , Sungsoo Hahn , Changyoung Kim

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 03:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el

keywords magnetic fluctuationsspin-orbit hybridizationsurface ferromagnetnodal-line crossingsARPESnon-Hermitian physicsBerry curvature

0 comments

The pith

Spin fluctuations suppress spin-orbit hybridization above the Curie temperature in GdAg2/Ag(111) while preserving nodal-line band crossings.

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

The paper investigates the interplay of magnetism and spin-orbit coupling in a two-dimensional surface ferromagnet with Weyl-nodal-line-like band crossings. It finds that spin fluctuations keep the nodal-line-derived crossings intact even above the magnetic ordering temperature. In contrast, the hybridization gap induced by spin-orbit coupling appears only at low temperatures, visible through redistribution of electronic spectral weight in photoemission data. The high-temperature suppression arises from spin decoherence and band-dependent scattering, which the authors model with an effective non-Hermitian description. This shows magnetic fluctuations acting as a knob to control topological features and Berry curvature.

Core claim

Spin fluctuations preserve the nodal-line-derived band crossings even above the Curie temperature, while SOC-induced hybridization develops only at low temperatures, as evidenced by spectral-weight redistribution. The suppression of the hybridization at high temperature is attributed to spin decoherence and band-dependent scattering, captured by an effective non-Hermitian framework.

What carries the argument

Effective non-Hermitian framework that incorporates spin decoherence and band-dependent scattering to suppress SOC-induced hybridization at elevated temperatures.

If this is right

Magnetic fluctuations function as a control for SOC-induced hybridization and the associated Berry curvature.
Nodal-line-derived band crossings stay protected above the Curie temperature owing to spin fluctuations.
Magnetic systems provide a platform for studying non-Hermitian band physics.
Temperature can tune the appearance of hybridization gaps in topological magnetic materials.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The fluctuation-driven mechanism may appear in other two-dimensional magnetic systems with topological bands.
Temperature-dependent ARPES on related magnets could help isolate fluctuation effects from phonon or lattice contributions.

Load-bearing premise

The temperature-dependent spectral-weight redistribution seen in ARPES arises primarily from magnetic spin fluctuations and decoherence rather than phonons, lattice changes, or experimental artifacts.

What would settle it

If ARPES measurements showed the SOC-induced hybridization gap remaining open above the Curie temperature, the claim that spin fluctuations suppress it would be contradicted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18009 by Changyoung Kim, Jongkeun Jung, Ryo Noguchi, Sungsoo Hahn, Younsik Kim.

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Temperature-dependent ARPES band maps taken [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Temperature-dependent ARPES band maps measured with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Magnetic materials hosting topological band structures have attracted intense interest due to the interplay between magnetism and spin-orbit coupling (SOC). Here, using temperature- and polarization-dependent angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy, we investigate the surface ferromagnet GdAg$_2$/Ag(111), a two-dimensional system with Weyl-nodal-line-like band crossings. We find that spin fluctuations preserve the nodal-line-derived band crossings even above the Curie temperature, while SOC-induced hybridization develops only at low temperatures, as evidenced by spectral-weight redistribution. The suppression of the hybridization at high temperature is attributed to spin decoherence and band-dependent scattering, captured by an effective non-Hermitian framework. Our results establish magnetic fluctuations as a control knob for SOC-induced hybridization and associated Berry curvature, and highlight magnetic systems as a platform for exploring non-Hermitian band physics.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

ARPES tracks temperature-dependent spectral weight shifts in GdAg2 that the authors tie to spin fluctuations suppressing SOC hybridization via a non-Hermitian model, but the magnetic mechanism is not cleanly separated from other thermal effects.

read the letter

The central observation is that in this GdAg2 surface layer the nodal-line crossings remain visible above the Curie temperature while the SOC hybridization gap or avoided crossing only develops at low temperature, shown through polarization-dependent ARPES intensity maps and spectral weight transfer. The authors model the high-temperature suppression with an effective non-Hermitian term that incorporates band-dependent scattering from spin decoherence. That combination of data and framing is the concrete addition here. The experiment itself is straightforward and well-chosen for a 2D ferromagnet: temperature sweeps plus linear polarization let them isolate the relevant bands and see how the hybridization evolves across Tc. The non-Hermitian language gives a compact way to describe the loss of coherence without invoking full many-body machinery, and it matches the reported redistribution. The paper is therefore useful as an experimental case study for people thinking about magnetic control of Berry curvature or non-Hermitian features in real materials. The soft spot is the causal attribution. The abstract and stress-test note both flag that ARPES intensities also shift with temperature through phonons, Debye-Waller factors, and Fermi-Dirac effects, yet the text does not appear to include a quantitative subtraction or a non-magnetic reference system to isolate the spin-fluctuation channel. The scattering rates in the model are adjustable, so the fit works but does not yet prove necessity. If the full figures contain error bars, multiple samples, or explicit checks against lattice expansion, that would tighten the claim; from the available description it remains an interpretation rather than a closed demonstration. Readers working on magnetic topological surfaces or 2D ferromagnets will find the raw temperature series worth looking at. The work is coherent on its own terms and engages the relevant literature, so it clears the bar for peer review even though the mechanism needs more controls. I would send it to referees.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports temperature- and polarization-dependent ARPES measurements on the surface ferromagnet GdAg₂/Ag(111), which hosts Weyl-nodal-line-like band crossings. It claims that spin fluctuations preserve these crossings above the Curie temperature Tc while SOC-induced hybridization (and associated spectral-weight redistribution) appears only below Tc. The high-temperature suppression of hybridization is attributed to spin decoherence and band-dependent scattering, which is captured by an effective non-Hermitian framework. The work positions magnetic fluctuations as a control parameter for SOC hybridization and Berry curvature.

Significance. If the magnetic origin of the observed redistribution is established, the result would provide a concrete experimental demonstration that spin fluctuations can selectively suppress SOC hybridization while preserving nodal crossings, thereby linking magnetic order to non-Hermitian band physics. The temperature-dependent ARPES data and the non-Hermitian modeling constitute a useful platform for exploring fluctuation-controlled topological features in 2D magnets.

major comments (3)

[Results section on T-dependent ARPES (near Figs. 2–4)] The central claim that spectral-weight redistribution is driven by magnetic spin fluctuations (rather than phonons, lattice expansion, or Fermi-Dirac broadening) is load-bearing, yet the manuscript provides no quantitative subtraction of non-magnetic temperature effects nor a comparison to a non-magnetic reference system. This leaves the attribution untested (see stress-test note).
[Theoretical modeling section (Eqs. defining the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian)] The effective non-Hermitian framework is introduced to explain the redistribution, but it is unclear whether its band-dependent scattering rates are derived from independent measurements (e.g., linewidth analysis or transport) or adjusted to fit the observed intensity transfer. If the latter, the model risks circularity and does not demonstrate necessity of the magnetic mechanism.
[Abstract and Fig. 3 caption] No error bars, fitting uncertainties, or explicit exclusion criteria for alternative explanations (phonon Debye-Waller factors, surface relaxation) are reported in the temperature series, making it impossible to verify that the data quantitatively support fluctuation-driven suppression over other T-dependent mechanisms.

minor comments (2)

[Experimental methods] Polarization dependence should be shown explicitly for all temperatures to confirm the orbital character assignment used to identify hybridization.
[Introduction or sample characterization] Clarify the precise definition of Tc in the surface layer versus bulk and how it is determined from the ARPES data themselves.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's positive assessment of the significance of our work and their recommendation for major revision. We have addressed all the major comments by proposing specific revisions to strengthen the evidence for the magnetic origin of the observed effects, clarify the modeling, and improve the reporting of uncertainties and alternative explanations.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Results section on T-dependent ARPES (near Figs. 2–4)] The central claim that spectral-weight redistribution is driven by magnetic spin fluctuations (rather than phonons, lattice expansion, or Fermi-Dirac broadening) is load-bearing, yet the manuscript provides no quantitative subtraction of non-magnetic temperature effects nor a comparison to a non-magnetic reference system. This leaves the attribution untested (see stress-test note).

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important point. While the manuscript does not include an explicit quantitative subtraction, the temperature series shows changes that are correlated with the magnetic transition temperature Tc. In the revised manuscript, we will add a quantitative estimate of non-magnetic contributions, including phonon Debye-Waller factors calculated from the Debye temperature and lattice expansion effects, demonstrating that they cannot account for the observed spectral weight redistribution. Regarding a non-magnetic reference, such a system is not directly comparable, but the polarization dependence unique to the magnetic order supports our attribution. We will incorporate this analysis in the results section. revision: yes
Referee: [Theoretical modeling section (Eqs. defining the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian)] The effective non-Hermitian framework is introduced to explain the redistribution, but it is unclear whether its band-dependent scattering rates are derived from independent measurements (e.g., linewidth analysis or transport) or adjusted to fit the observed intensity transfer. If the latter, the model risks circularity and does not demonstrate necessity of the magnetic mechanism.

Authors: The scattering rates in the non-Hermitian model are informed by the temperature-dependent linewidths extracted from the ARPES spectra, which show increased broadening above Tc consistent with spin fluctuation scattering. We will revise the theoretical section to include the linewidth data and explicitly derive the imaginary potentials from these measurements, thereby demonstrating that the model is not circular but grounded in independent spectral features. This will clarify the necessity of the magnetic mechanism. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract and Fig. 3 caption] No error bars, fitting uncertainties, or explicit exclusion criteria for alternative explanations (phonon Debye-Waller factors, surface relaxation) are reported in the temperature series, making it impossible to verify that the data quantitatively support fluctuation-driven suppression over other T-dependent mechanisms.

Authors: We agree that error bars and uncertainties should be reported. In the revision, we will include error bars on the data points in Fig. 3 and discuss the fitting procedures with uncertainties. Additionally, we will add explicit criteria and arguments excluding phonon Debye-Waller factors and surface relaxation by comparing the temperature dependence to known phonon scales and noting the absence of structural transitions. These additions will be made to the figure caption, abstract if appropriate, and the main text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: framework presented as interpretive model for independent ARPES observations

full rationale

The abstract attributes temperature-dependent spectral-weight redistribution to spin decoherence within a non-Hermitian framework, but provides no equations, parameter-fitting procedure, or self-citation chain that reduces the central claim to its own inputs by construction. The observed band crossings and hybridization changes are reported as experimental facts from temperature- and polarization-dependent ARPES; the framework is invoked to interpret them rather than to derive the data. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input prediction, or load-bearing self-citation is exhibited in the given text. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks (ARPES spectra), consistent with a score of 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard ARPES interpretation assumptions and an effective non-Hermitian model whose scattering parameters are not shown to be independently constrained.

free parameters (1)

band-dependent scattering rates
Introduced in the non-Hermitian framework to account for differential scattering that suppresses hybridization at high temperature

axioms (1)

domain assumption ARPES spectral weight directly reflects the underlying band hybridization and its temperature evolution
Used to interpret redistribution as evidence of suppressed SOC hybridization

invented entities (1)

effective non-Hermitian framework no independent evidence
purpose: To model spin decoherence and band-dependent scattering effects on hybridization
Postulated to explain why hybridization vanishes above the Curie temperature

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5458 in / 1348 out tokens · 54467 ms · 2026-05-10T03:58:08.604503+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references

[1]

Tokura, K

Y. Tokura, K. Yasuda, and A. Tsukazaki, Nature Re- views Physics1, 126 (2019)

2019
[2]

Chang, C.-X

C.-Z. Chang, C.-X. Liu, and A. H. MacDonald, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 011002 (2023)

2023
[3]

Chang, J

C. Chang, J. Zhang, X. Feng, J. Shen, and Z. Zhang, Science15, 167 (2013)

2013
[4]

J. G. Checkelsky, R. Yoshimi, A. Tsukazaki, K. S. Takahashi, Y. Kozuka, J. Falson, M. Kawasaki, and Y. Tokura, Nature Physics10, 731 (2014)

2014
[5]

M. M. Otrokov, I. I. Klimovskikh, H. Bentmann, D. Es- tyunin, A. Zeugner, Z. S. Aliev, S. Gaß, A. U. B. Wolter, A. V. Koroleva, A. M. Shikin, M. Blanco-Rey, M. Hoff- 6 mann, I. P. Rusinov, A. Y. Vyazovskaya, S. V. Ere- meev, Y. M. Koroteev, V. M. Kuznetsov, F. Freyse, J. S´ anchez-Barriga, I. R. Amiraslanov, M. B. Babanly, N. T. Mamedov, N. A. Abdullayev,...

2019
[6]

Y. Gong, J. Guo, J. Li, K. Zhu, M. Liao, X. Liu, Q. Zhang, L. Gu, L. Tang, X. Feng, D. Zhang, W. Li, C. Song, L. Wang, P. Yu, X. Chen, Y. Wang, H. Yao, W. Duan, Y. Xu, S.-C. Zhang, X. Ma, Q.-K. Xue, and K. He, Chinese Physics Letters36, 076801 (2019)

2019
[7]

Y. Deng, Y. Yu, M. Z. Shi, Z. Guo, Z. Xu, J. Wang, X. H. Chen, and Y. Zhang, Science367, 895 (2020)

2020
[8]

Kuroda, T

K. Kuroda, T. Tomita, M.-T. Suzuki, C. Bareille, A. A. Nugroho, P. Goswami, M. Ochi, M. Ikhlas, M. Nakayama, S. Akebi, R. Noguchi, R. Ishii, N. In- ami, K. Ono, H. Kumigashira, A. Varykhalov, T. Muro, T. Koretsune, R. Arita, S. Shin, T. Kondo, and S. Nakat- suji, Nature Materials16, 1090 (2017)

2017
[9]

D. F. Liu, A. J. Liang, E. K. Liu, Q. N. Xu, Y. W. Li, C. Chen, D. Pei, W. J. Shi, S. K. Mo, P. Dudin, T. Kim, C. Cacho, G. Li, Y. Sun, L. X. Yang, Z. K. Liu, S. S. P. Parkin, C. Felser, and Y. L. Chen, Science365, 1282 (2019)

2019
[10]

Morali, R

N. Morali, R. Batabyal, P. K. Nag, E. Liu, Q. Xu, Y. Sun, B. Yan, C. Felser, N. Avraham, and H. Beidenkopf, Sci- ence365, 1286 (2019)

2019
[11]

Belopolski, K

I. Belopolski, K. Manna, D. S. Sanchez, G. Chang, B. Ernst, J. Yin, S. S. Zhang, T. Cochran, N. Shumiya, H. Zheng, B. Singh, G. Bian, D. Multer, M. Litskevich, X. Zhou, S.-M. Huang, B. Wang, T.-R. Chang, S.-Y. Xu, A. Bansil, C. Felser, H. Lin, and M. Z. Hasan, Science 365, 1278 (2019)

2019
[12]

Q. Xu, E. Liu, W. Shi, L. Muechler, J. Gayles, C. Felser, and Y. Sun, Physical Review B97, 235416 (2018)

2018
[13]

E. Liu, Y. Sun, N. Kumar, L. Muechler, A. Sun, L. Jiao, S.-Y. Yang, D. Liu, A. Liang, Q. Xu, J. Kroder, V. S¨ uß, H. Borrmann, C. Shekhar, Z. Wang, C. Xi, W. Wang, W. Schnelle, S. Wirth, Y. Chen, S. T. B. Goennenwein, and C. Felser, Nature Physics14, 1125 (2018)

2018
[14]

D. F. Liu, E. K. Liu, Q. N. Xu, J. L. Shen, Y. W. Li, D. Pei, A. J. Liang, P. Dudin, T. K. Kim, C. Cacho, Y. F. Xu, Y. Sun, L. X. Yang, Z. K. Liu, C. Felser, S. S. P. Parkin, and Y. L. Chen, npj Quantum Materials7, 11 (2022)

2022
[15]

Belopolski, T

I. Belopolski, T. A. Cochran, X. Liu, Z.-J. Cheng, X. P. Yang, Z. Guguchia, S. S. Tsirkin, J.-X. Yin, P. Vir, G. S. Thakur, S. S. Zhang, J. Zhang, K. Kaznatcheev, G. Cheng, G. Chang, D. Multer, N. Shumiya, M. Litske- vich, E. Vescovo, T. K. Kim, C. Cacho, N. Yao, C. Felser, T. Neupert, and M. Z. Hasan, Physical Review Letters 127, 256403 (2021)

2021
[16]

D. F. Liu, Q. N. Xu, E. K. Liu, J. L. Shen, C. C. Le, Y. W. Li, D. Pei, A. J. Liang, P. Dudin, T. K. Kim, C. Cacho, Y. F. Xu, Y. Sun, L. X. Yang, Z. K. Liu, C. Felser, S. S. P. Parkin, and Y. L. Chen, Physical Review B104, 205140 (2021)

2021
[17]

Rossi, V

A. Rossi, V. Ivanov, S. Sreedhar, A. L. Gross, Z. Shen, E. Rotenberg, A. Bostwick, C. Jozwiak, V. Taufour, S. Y. Savrasov, and I. M. Vishik, Physical Review B104, 155115 (2021)

2021
[18]

J.-Z. Ma, S. M. Nie, C. J. Yi, J. Jandke, T. Shang, M. Y. Yao, M. Naamneh, L. Q. Yan, Y. Sun, A. Chik- ina, V. N. Strocov, M. Medarde, M. Song, Y.-M. Xiong, G. Xu, W. Wulfhekel, J. Mesot, M. Reticcioli, C. Fran- chini, C. Mudry, M. M¨ uller, Y. G. Shi, T. Qian, H. Ding, and M. Shi, Science Advances5, eaaw4718 (2019)

2019
[19]

M. X. Sprague, S. Regmi, B. Ghosh, A. P. Sakhya, M. I. Mondal, I. B. Elius, N. Valadez, B. Singh, T. Romanova, D. Kaczorowski, A. Bansil, and M. Neupane, Physical Review B110, 045130 (2024)

2024
[20]

D. Li, J. Pearson, S. D. Bader, D. N. McIlroy, C. Wald- fried, and P. A. Dowben, Physical Review B51, 13895 (1995)

1995
[21]

Weschke, C

E. Weschke, C. Sch¨ ussler-Langeheine, R. Meier, A. V. Fedorov, K. Starke, F. H¨ ubinger, and G. Kaindl, Physical Review Letters77, 3415 (1996)

1996
[22]

Donath, B

M. Donath, B. Gubanka, and F. Passek, Physical Review Letters77, 5138 (1996)

1996
[23]

Getzlaff, M

M. Getzlaff, M. Bode, S. Heinze, R. Pascal, and R. Wiesendanger, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials184, 155 (1998)

1998
[24]

Maiti, M

K. Maiti, M. C. Malagoli, A. Dallmeyer, and C. Carbone, Physical Review Letters88, 167205 (2002)

2002
[25]

A. V. Fedorov, T. Valla, F. Liu, P. D. Johnson, M. Wein- ert, and P. B. Allen, Physical Review B65, 212409 (2002)

2002
[26]

N. Qin, C. Chen, S. Du, X. Du, X. Zhang, Z. Yin, J. Zhou, R. Xu, X. Gu, Q. Zhang, W. Zhao, Y. Li, S.-K. Mo, Z. Liu, S. Zhang, Y. Guo, P. Tang, Y. Chen, and L. Yang, Physical Review B106, 035129 (2022)

2022
[27]

H. Wu, C. Hu, Y. Xie, B. G. Jang, J. Huang, Y. Guo, S. Wu, C. Hu, Z. Yue, Y. Shi, R. Basak, Z. Ren, T. Yil- maz, E. Vescovo, C. Jozwiak, A. Bostwick, E. Roten- berg, A. Fedorov, J. D. Denlinger, C. Klewe, P. Shafer, D. Lu, M. Hashimoto, J. Kono, A. Frano, R. J. Birge- neau, X. Xu, J.-X. Zhu, P. Dai, J.-H. Chu, and M. Yi, Physical Review B109, 104410 (2024)

2024
[28]

Zhong, C

Y. Zhong, C. Peng, H. Huang, D. Guan, J. Hwang, K. H. Hsu, Y. Hu, C. Jia, B. Moritz, D. Lu, J.-S. Lee, J.-F. Jia, T. P. Devereaux, S.-K. Mo, and Z.-X. Shen, Nature Communications14, 5340 (2023)

2023
[29]

Cheng, I

Z. Cheng, I. Belopolski, H. Tien, T. A. Cochran, X. P. Yang, W. Ma, J. Yin, D. Chen, J. Zhang, C. Jozwiak, A. Bostwick, E. Rotenberg, G. Cheng, M. S. Hossain, Q. Zhang, M. Litskevich, Y. Jiang, N. Yao, N. B. M. Schroeter, V. N. Strocov, B. Lian, C. Felser, G. Chang, S. Jia, T. Chang, and M. Z. Hasan, Advanced Materials 35, 2205927 (2023)

2023
[30]

R. Lou, L. Zhou, W. Song, A. Fedorov, Z. Tu, B. Jiang, Q. Wang, M. Li, Z. Liu, X. Chen, O. Rader, B. B¨ uchner, Y. Sun, H. Weng, H. Lei, and S. Wang, Nature Commu- nications15, 9823 (2024)

2024
[31]

Damascelli, Physica ScriptaT109, 61 (2004)

A. Damascelli, Physica ScriptaT109, 61 (2004)

2004
[32]

S´ anchez-Barriga, A

J. S´ anchez-Barriga, A. Varykhalov, G. Springholz, H. Steiner, R. Kirchschlager, G. Bauer, O. Caha, E. Schierle, E. Weschke, A. A. ¨Unal, S. Valencia, M. Dunst, J. Braun, H. Ebert, J. Min´ ar, E. Golias, L. V. Yashina, A. Ney, V. Hol´ y, and O. Rader, Nature Com- munications7, 10559 (2016)

2016
[33]

A. M. Shikin, D. A. Estyunin, I. I. Klimovskikh, S. O. Fil- nov, E. F. Schwier, S. Kumar, K. Miyamoto, T. Okuda, A. Kimura, K. Kuroda, K. Yaji, S. Shin, Y. Takeda, Y. Saitoh, Z. S. Aliev, N. T. Mamedov, I. R. Ami- 7 raslanov, M. B. Babanly, M. M. Otrokov, S. V. Eremeev, and E. V. Chulkov, Scientific Reports10, 13226 (2020)

2020
[34]

Garnica, M

M. Garnica, M. M. Otrokov, P. C. Aguilar, I. I. Klimovskikh, D. Estyunin, Z. S. Aliev, I. R. Amiraslanov, N. A. Abdullayev, V. N. Zverev, M. B. Babanly, N. T. Mamedov, A. M. Shikin, A. Arnau, A. L. V. de Parga, E. V. Chulkov, and R. Miranda, npj Quantum Materials 7, 7 (2022)

2022
[35]

Chuang, C.-H

F.-C. Chuang, C.-H. Hsu, H.-L. Chou, C. P. Crisostomo, Z.-Q. Huang, S.-Y. Wu, C.-C. Kuo, W.-C. V. Yeh, H. Lin, and A. Bansil, Physical Review B93, 035429 (2016)

2016
[36]

B. Feng, B. Fu, S. Kasamatsu, S. Ito, P. Cheng, C.-C. Liu, Y. Feng, S. Wu, S. K. Mahatha, P. Sheverdyaeva, P. Moras, M. Arita, O. Sugino, T.-C. Chiang, K. Shi- mada, K. Miyamoto, T. Okuda, K. Wu, L. Chen, Y. Yao, and I. Matsuda, Nature Communications8, 1007 (2017)

2017
[37]

Feng, R.-W

B. Feng, R.-W. Zhang, Y. Feng, B. Fu, S. Wu, K. Miyamoto, S. He, L. Chen, K. Wu, K. Shimada, T. Okuda, and Y. Yao, Physical Review Letters123, 116401 (2019)

2019
[38]

¨Unzelmann, H

M. ¨Unzelmann, H. Bentmann, P. Eck, T. Kißlinger, B. Geldiyev, J. Rieger, S. Moser, R. C. Vidal, K. Kißner, L. Hammer, M. A. Schneider, T. Fauster, G. Sangiovanni, D. D. Sante, and F. Reinert, Physical Review Letters 124, 176401 (2020)

2020
[39]

L. Liu, C. Wang, J. Li, X. Q. Chen, Y. Jia, and J. H. Cho, Physical Review B101, 1 (2020)

2020
[40]

J. Lu, L. Gao, S. Song, H. Li, G. Niu, H. Chen, T. Qian, H. Ding, X. Lin, S. Du, and H. J. Gao, ACS Applied Nano Materials4, 8845 (2021)

2021
[41]

Bauernfeind, J

M. Bauernfeind, J. Erhardt, P. Eck, P. K. Thakur, J. Gabel, T.-L. Lee, J. Sch¨ afer, S. Moser, D. D. Sante, R. Claessen, and G. Sangiovanni, Nature Communica- tions12, 5396 (2021)

2021
[42]

Cameau, N

M. Cameau, N. Olszowska, M. Rosmus, M. G. Silly, T. Cren, A. Malecot, P. David, and M. D’angelo, 2D Materials11, 035023 (2024)

2024
[43]

A. V. Matetskiy, A. Barla, P. Moras, C. Carbone, V. Milotti, C. A. Brondin, Z. R. Benher, M. Holub, P. Ohresser, E. Otero, F. Choueikani, I. A. Shvets, A. N. Mihalyuk, S. V. Eremeev, and P. M. Sheverdyaeva, ACS Nano19, 20863 (2025)

2025
[44]

Ormaza, L

M. Ormaza, L. Fern´ andez, M. Ilyn, A. Maga˜ na, B. Xu, M. J. Verstraete, M. Gastaldo, M. A. Valbuena, P. Gar- giani, A. Mugarza, A. Ayuela, L. Vitali, M. Blanco-Rey, F. Schiller, and J. E. Ortega, Nano Letters16, 4230 (2016)

2016
[45]

See supplementary information at [url] for the details of the methods and analysis
[46]

Correa, B

A. Correa, B. Xu, M. J. Verstraete, and L. Vitali, Nanoscale8, 19148 (2016)

2016
[47]

Fernandez, M

L. Fernandez, M. Blanco-Rey, R. Castrillo-Bodero, M. Ilyn, K. Ali, E. Turco, M. Corso, M. Ormaza, P. Gar- giani, M. A. Valbuena, A. Mugarza, P. Moras, P. M. Sheverdyaeva, A. K. Kundu, M. Jugovac, C. Laubschat, J. E. Ortega, and F. Schiller, Nanoscale12, 22258 (2020)

2020
[48]

Bentmann, S

H. Bentmann, S. Abdelouahed, M. Mulazzi, J. J. Henk, and F. Reinert, Physical Review Letters108, 196801 (2012)

2012
[49]

B. Zhen, C. W. Hsu, Y. Igarashi, L. Lu, I. Kaminer, A. Pick, S.-L. Chua, J. D. Joannopoulos, and M. Soljaˇ ci´ c, Nature525, 354 (2015)

2015
[50]

Eleuch and I

H. Eleuch and I. Rotter, Physical Review A95, 022117 (2017)

2017
[51]

Kozii and L

V. Kozii and L. Fu, Physical Review B109, 235139 (2024)

2024
[52]

N. H. Jo, Y. Wu, T. V. Trevisan, L.-L. Wang, K. Lee, B. Kuthanazhi, B. Schrunk, S. L. Bud’ko, P. C. Canfield, P. P. Orth, and A. Kaminski, Nature Communications 12, 7169 (2021)

2021
[53]

S. Hahn, B. Sohn, M. Kim, J. R. Kim, S. Huh, Y. Kim, W. Kyung, M. Kim, D. Kim, Y. Kim, T. W. Noh, J. H. Shim, and C. Kim, Physical Review Letters127, 256401 (2021)

2021
[54]

E. J. Bergholtz, J. C. Budich, and F. K. Kunst, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 015005 (2021)

2021
[55]

Cayao, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter35, 254002 (2023)

J. Cayao, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter35, 254002 (2023)

2023
[56]

Yoshida, R

T. Yoshida, R. Peters, and N. Kawakami, Physical Re- view B98, 035141 (2018)

2018
[57]

Kawabata, K

K. Kawabata, K. Shiozaki, M. Ueda, and M. Sato, Phys- ical Review X9, 041015 (2019)

2019
[58]

E. J. Bergholtz and J. C. Budich, Physical Review Re- search1, 012003 (2019)

2019
[59]

Nagai, Y

Y. Nagai, Y. Qi, H. Isobe, V. Kozii, and L. Fu, Physical Review Letters125, 227204 (2020)

2020
[60]

C. Li, Y. Wang, J. Zhang, G. Liu, H. Liu, W. Chen, H. Deng, W. Ma, C. Polley, B. Thiagarajan, T. K. Kim, J. Yin, Y. Shi, T. Xiang, and O. Tjernberg, Advanced Materials37, 2419559 (2025)

2025