Pursuing High-Temperature Quantum Anomalous Hall Effect in MnBi$_2$Te$_4$/Sb$_2$Te$_3$ Heterostructures

Maozhi Chang; Ruiling Gao; Shifei Qi; Yulei Han; Zhenhua Qiao

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Pursuing High-Temperature Quantum Anomalous Hall Effect in MnBi$_2$Te$_4$/Sb$_2$Te$_3$ Heterostructures

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A stacked MnBi2Te4/Sb2Te3/MnBi2Te4 sandwich could host the quantum anomalous Hall effect at 42 K.

desk verdict A specific, testable computational proposal for zero-field QAHE in MnBi2Te4/Sb2Te3/MnBi2Te4, with a solid 26 meV gap and C=1 but a Curie temperature estimate that likely runs hot. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00498 v2 pith:JYRN7M6E submitted 2019-08-01 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Shifei Qi , Ruiling Gao , Maozhi Chang , Yulei Han , Zhenhua Qiao This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords quantumanomalousHalleffectMnBi2Te4Sb2Te3heterostructureferromagnetismChernnumbertopologicalinsulatorfirst-principles

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 aims to show that a naturally charge-compensated van der Waals heterostructure, MnBi2Te4/Sb2Te3/MnBi2Te4, can host the quantum anomalous Hall effect (QAHE) without any external magnetic field and at a substantially higher temperature than existing doped topological insulators. The central claim is that inserting a five-quintuple-layer Sb2Te3 slab between two septuple-layer MnBi2Te4 blocks flips the interlayer coupling from antiferromagnetic to ferromagnetic, with an estimated Curie temperature of 42 K. First-principles band-structure and topological calculations then give a topologically nontrivial gap of 26 meV with Chern number $\mathcal{C}=1$, so the system is an intrinsic zero-field QAHE platform. A sympathetic reader would care because experimental QAHE so far requires either millikelvin temperatures or a magnetic field strong enough to align all magnetic layers, and this proposal targets both problems at once.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on density-functional-theory total-energy differences between ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic spin arrangements, converted into an exchange parameter $J$ and then into a Curie temperature through the mean-field formula $k_{\rm B}T_{\rm C} = (2/3) J x$. The topological verdict comes from integrating Berry curvature over the occupied bands to obtain the Chern number and from a surface Green-function calculation of the chiral edge state. The physical mechanism proposed for the interlayer ferromagnetism is surface-carrier-mediated (RKKY-type) exchange: the Sb2Te3 spacer separates the two MnBi2Te4 blocks, and the topological surface states penetrating 2-3 quintuple layers carry the long-range ferromagnetic coupling between the two interfaces.

What would settle it

Measure the temperature-dependent magnetization or anomalous Hall resistance of an MBT/ST/MBT film: if ferromagnetic order and the quantized Hall plateau disappear well below 42 K (for example, below 10 K), the central high-temperature claim is refuted even if the band gap and Chern number are confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that the ground state of the MBT/ST/MBT stack (one septuple-layer MnBi2Te4, five quintuple-layers Sb2Te3, one septuple-layer MnBi2Te4, in the ABC-ACB stacking) is ferromagnetic: the total-energy difference between ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic configurations is $\Delta E_{\rm FM-AFM} = -27.9$ meV per cell, yielding an estimated interlayer ferromagnetic transition at $T_{\rm C}=42$ K. For this stack the bulk band structure shows a 26 meV gap at the Dirac point, and integration of the Berry curvature gives a quantized Hall conductance $\sigma_{xy} = +e^2/h$ with Chern number $\mathcal{C}=1$, confirmed by a single chiral edge state crossing the gap. The paper also argues the material is experimentally favorable because intrinsic n-type defects in MnBi2Te4 and p-type defects in Sb2Te3 compensate each other, keeping the Fermi level inside the gap without extrinsic doping.

Load-bearing premise

The high-temperature part of the claim rests on the mean-field formula $k_{\rm B}T_{\rm C} = (2/3) J x$ applied to a layered van der Waals magnet, an estimate that has not been benchmarked for these materials and could overestimate the true ordering temperature.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If correct, zero-field QAHE could be observed at tens of kelvin rather than tens of millikelvin, making dissipationless edge transport accessible at much higher temperatures.
The 26 meV gap and $\mathcal{C}=1$ mean the quantized Hall conductance should survive as an intrinsic property of the MBT/ST/MBT stack, not relying on gating or external fields.
Charge compensation from intrinsic n-type MnBi2Te4 and p-type Sb2Te3 defects suggests stoichiometric growth may already place the Fermi level in the gap.
The same sandwich logic could be extended by tuning the Sb2Te3 thickness or replacing the spacer to raise $T_{\rm C}$ further, since the ferromagnetic coupling is mediated by the spacer's surface states.

Reading between the lines

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

The mean-field estimate for $T_{\rm C}$ is the least secure link: the formula $k_{\rm B}T_{\rm C} = (2/3) J x$ is taken from diluted magnetic semiconductor theory, and for a layered van der Waals magnet with strong two-dimensional fluctuations the true ordering temperature could be substantially lower; a Monte Carlo or experiment-based estimate would test this.
The paper's implicit design rule is that interlayer ferromagnetism requires two MnBi2Te4 blocks facing a common Sb2Te3 spacer, because longer chains (MBT/ST/MBT/ST/MBT) revert to antiferromagnetism when the separation exceeds the roughly 4-6 quintuple-layer penetration depth of the combined surface states.
One testable extension is to vary the Sb2Te3 thickness between 1 and 5 quintuple layers: the paper's mechanism predicts the ferromagnetic state and the 26 meV gap should weaken or disappear when the spacer becomes too thick for the two surfaces' carrier clouds to overlap.

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

Dear [Colleague],

This is a computational materials-design paper with a specific, testable target: a MnBi2Te4/Sb2Te3/MnBi2Te4 sandwich that might show the quantum anomalous Hall effect at zero magnetic field, with a claimed Curie temperature of 42 K and a 26 meV topological gap. The genuinely new pieces are the ABC-ACB stacking, the 5-quintuple-layer Sb2Te3 spacer, and the argument that the spacer turns the interlayer AFM coupling of MnBi2Te4 into FM. The topological calculations are the strong part. VASP PBE+U, WannierTools, Berry curvature, Chern number C=1, chiral edge state: this is standard methodology, and the 26 meV gap for the MBT/ST/MBT stack looks internally consistent. I trust that part about as much as any DFT band-topology result.

The soft spot is the 42 K number. It comes from the mean-field expression kBTC=(2/3)Jx, lifted from diluted magnetic semiconductor theory. In this stoichiometric stack there is no dopant concentration x to plug in, and the paper doesn't define how J is extracted from the FM-AFM total-energy difference (-27.9 meV) or how many Mn-Mn pairs are counted. Mean-field Curie temperatures in low-dimensional magnets usually run high by a factor of 2-4 because spin fluctuations are omitted. The calculated magnetocrystalline anisotropy, 0.06 meV/Mn, is small, so the system is not strongly Ising; fluctuations should matter. The paper cites an experiment on the analogous MnBi2Te4/Bi2Te3 heterostructure that found ferromagnetism only below 5 K, and then says the calculations "agree well" with it. That is not what 42 K versus 5 K looks like. My guess is the real TC is more like 10-20 K, in which case the high-temperature headline is overstated, even though the zero-field QAHE proposal could still work at lower temperatures. The charge-compensation argument is also plausible but unverified: defect physics is asserted from bulk behavior, and the electric-field test is done on the bilayer, not on the full stack with actual defects.

No circular reasoning here; the gap and the TC come from separate calculations. The paper is honest about the mean-field approximation, just not about its likely error bar. For someone designing MnBi2Te4 heterostructures or hunting for zero-field QAHE, this is worth reading and the specific stacking proposal is worth citing with a caveat on the transition temperature. A serious referee should engage; I'd send it to review, with the request that the authors benchmark the TC estimate against a spin-model Monte Carlo or measured TC in related vdW magnets, and spell out the mapping from ΔE to J. The band-topology part is solid enough to stand on its own.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a van der Waals heterostructure, MnBi2Te4/Sb2Te3/MnBi2Te4, as a zero-field quantum anomalous Hall (QAHE) platform. Using DFT (PBE+U) and WannierTools, the authors compute the interlayer magnetic coupling, estimate a Curie temperature TC=42 K from a mean-field formula, find a 26 meV topologically nontrivial gap with Chern number C=1 and a chiral edge state, and argue that intrinsic n-type defects in MnBi2Te4 and p-type defects in Sb2Te3 provide natural charge compensation. The central claims are that interlayer ferromagnetic order can be achieved without an external field and that this enables high-temperature QAHE near 42 K.

Significance. If the predictions hold, this heterostructure would be an attractive candidate for zero-field QAHE at temperatures far above the millikelvin scale of doped-TI devices. The topological characterization (Chern number, edge states, Berry curvature) is performed with standard, reproducible methods and appears internally consistent. However, the headline quantitative claim, TC=42 K, rests on a mean-field formula that is not adapted to this layered stoichiometric system, and the paper's cited experimental analog orders below 5 K. The topological gap and Chern number may well be correct, but the high-temperature QAHE claim is not yet convincingly supported.

major comments (4)

[Methods, Eq. (1); Table I] The mean-field formula kBTC=(2/3)Jx is used with x called the 'dopant concentration,' but the MBT/ST/MBT system is stoichiometric and contains no dopants. The conversion from the computed energy difference ΔE=-27.9 meV to the exchange parameter J is not given. Without an unambiguous definition of both J and x, the quoted value TC=42 K is not reproducible, and this is the load-bearing quantity for the paper's main claim.
[Magnetic Properties section] The mean-field estimate is imported from diluted magnetic semiconductor theory and is not benchmarked against layered van der Waals magnets. Mean-field treatments typically overestimate TC in low-dimensional systems because they neglect spin fluctuations, and the calculated magnetocrystalline anisotropy of only 0.06 meV/Mn indicates the system is not deeply Ising-like. The authors' own cited experiment [44] observes ferromagnetism in a related MnBi2Te4/Bi2Te3 heterostructure only below 5 K; the paper does not reconcile this order-of-magnitude discrepancy with the predicted 42 K.
[Band Structures and QAHE section] The paper equates the QAHE observation temperature with the zero-temperature magnetic TC. The 26 meV gap and the Chern number are computed at T=0; near TC the exchange splitting collapses and the Hall conductance will deviate from the quantized value well before TC is reached. The statement that 'the QAHE observation temperature can reach up to 42 K' therefore requires a finite-temperature estimate (e.g., temperature-dependent gap or magnetization) that is not provided.
[Summary section] The suggestion of natural charge compensation relies on the existence of intrinsic n-type defects in MnBi2Te4 and p-type defects in Sb2Te3, but no defect formation energies, dopant concentrations, or band-alignment calculations are presented. This speculative argument is used to argue that the heterostructure is an 'ideal platform' for QAHE in realistic samples; as it stands, the claim is not quantitatively supported.

minor comments (5)

[Band Structures and QAHE section] The text states that 'Figure 6(b) displays the Hall conductance,' but the figure caption labels the Hall conductivity as panel (c); the in-text reference should be corrected.
[Methods and Systems section] The phrase 'In comparision' should read 'In comparison.'
[Figure 1] The red-solid frames in panels (a) and (d) are said to label two stacking arrangements, but the connection between the frames and the 'ABC-ABC' and 'ABC-ACB' labels is not immediately clear; please clarify the caption.
[Figure 5] The arrow indicating the electric-field direction is difficult to discern; consider enlarging it or adding a separate schematic.
[References] Several references are arXiv preprints (e.g., [42], [44]); please update to published versions where available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central predictions are independent first-principles outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims — the 42 K interlayer ferromagnetic transition, the 26 meV band gap, and the Chern number C = 1 — are derived from independent first-principles calculations rather than from the quantities they are supposed to predict. The Curie temperature is estimated from the mean-field expression kBTC = (2/3)Jx, with the exchange parameter J obtained from the computed FM–AFM total-energy difference of ΔE = −27.9 meV for the MBT/ST/MBT system. Thus TC is an output of the total-energy calculation, not a fitted input that is then relabeled as a prediction. The band gap and Chern number come from separate band-structure and Berry-curvature calculations, and the chiral edge state is verified with a surface Green-function method; none of these steps assumes the existence of a high-temperature QAHE. The cited prior work by members of the group (e.g., Refs. [14] and [28]) appears only in contextual citation lists and does not carry the argument. The reference to the experimental MnBi2Te4/Bi2Te3 result [44] is used as corroboration that interlayer coupling weakens with separation, not as the source of the predicted TC or gap. The mean-field formula for TC is imported from diluted magnetic semiconductor theory and its applicability to this stoichiometric van der Waals magnet, including the meaning of the dopant concentration x, is not fully specified; this is a numerical robustness concern rather than a circularity, because the predicted temperature is not equivalent to any fit parameter by construction. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and exhibits no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core prediction is not fitted to experimental data, which is good, but it leans on a Hubbard U chosen from prior literature, an unbenchmarked mean-field TC formula, and an RKKY coupling model borrowed by analogy. The band-topology part (C=1, edge state) is the most robust; the TC and charge-compensation claims are the least robust.

free parameters (2)

Hubbard U for Mn 3d orbitals = 3.00 eV and 5.34 eV (with J=0)
Chosen from prior literature (Ref. [49]) and applied by hand. The paper states different U values give similar results but does not show the comparison, and the value affects the band gap and exchange energies.
Concentration x in kBTC=(2/3)Jx = not stated (implicitly 1)
The Curie temperature formula includes a concentration x, described as dopant concentration. The paper never defines x for this intrinsic van der Waals heterostructure, leaving the TC estimate underdetermined.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption DFT with GGA+U and vdW correction captures the magnetic ground state, band gap, and topology of MnBi2Te4/Sb2Te3 heterostructures.
All central results depend on the accuracy of the exchange-correlation functional and the Hubbard U; no experimental data are used to validate the computed energies.
ad hoc to paper Mean-field relation kBTC=(2/3)Jx gives a reliable Curie temperature for this layered van der Waals magnet.
The formula is borrowed from diluted magnetic semiconductor theory (Ref. [51]) and is applied without benchmarking against Monte Carlo or experiment for vdW heterostructures.
domain assumption RKKY surface-carrier mediation with a 2-3 QL penetration depth explains the interfacial FM coupling in MBT/ST/MBT.
Applied from Ref. [52] by analogy; the paper does not compute RKKY exchange directly.
standard math Chern number from occupied-band Berry curvature integration identifies the QAHE phase.
This is standard topological band theory; the calculation is straightforward and internally consistent.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pursuing High-Temperature Quantum Anomalous Hall Effect in MnBi$_2$Te$_4$/Sb$_2$Te$_3$ Heterostructures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JYRN7M6E

@misc{pith2026190800498,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pursuing High-Temperature Quantum Anomalous Hall Effect in MnBi$_2$Te$_4$/Sb$_2$Te$_3$ Heterostructures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JYRN7M6E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00498}
}

abstract

Quantum anomalous Hall effect (QAHE) has been experimentally realized in magnetically-doped topological insulators or intrinsic magnetic topological insulator MnBi$_2$Te$_4$ by applying an external magnetic field. However, either the low observation temperature or the unexpected external magnetic field (tuning all MnBi$_2$Te$_4$ layers to be ferromagnetic) still hinders further application of QAHE. Here, we theoretically demonstrate that proper stacking of MnBi$_2$Te$_4$ and Sb$_2$Te$_3$ layers is able to produce intrinsically ferromagnetic van der Waals heterostructures to realize the high-temperature QAHE. We find that interlayer ferromagnetic transition can happen at $T_{\rm C}=42~\rm K$ when a five-quintuple-layer Sb$_2$Te$_3$ topological insulator is inserted into two septuple-layer MnBi$_2$Te$_4$ with interlayer antiferromagnetic coupling. Band structure and topological property calculations show that MnBi$_2$Te$_4$/Sb$_2$Te$_3$/MnBi$_2$Te$_4$ heterostructure exhibits a topologically nontrivial band gap around 26 meV, that hosts a QAHE with a Chern number of $\mathcal{C}=1$. In addition, our proposed materials system should be considered as an ideal platform to explore high-temperature QAHE due to the fact of natural charge-compensation, originating from the intrinsic n-type defects in MnBi$_2$Te$_4$ and p-type defects in Sb$_2$Te$_3$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00498 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) The space distribution of spin density of MBT/ST/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Band structures of four different ferromagnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Band structures along high-symmetry lines (a) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[44]

J. Wu, F. Liu, M. Sasase, K. Ienaga, Y. Obata, R. Yukawa, K. Horiba, H. Kumigashira, S. OKUMA, T. In- oshita, and H. Hosono, arXiv 1905, 02385 (2019). 7

work page 2019
[1]

Chang, J

C.-Z. Chang, J. S. Zhang, X. Feng, J. Shen, Z. C. Zhang, M. Guo, K. Li, Y. Ou, P. Wei, L.-L. Wang, Z.-Q. Ji, Y. Feng, S. H. Ji, X. Chen, J. F. Jia, X. Dai, Z. Fang, S.-C. Zhang, K. He, Y. Y. Wang, L. Lu, X.-C. Ma, and Q.-K. Xue, Science 340, 167 (2013)

work page 2013
[2]

J. G. Checkelsky, R. Yoshimi, A. Tsukazaki, K. S. Taka- hashi, Y. Kozuka, J. Falson, M. Kawasaki, and Y. Tokura, Nat. Phys. 10, 731 (2014)

2014
[3]

Kou, S.-T

X. Kou, S.-T. Guo, Y. Fan, L. Pan, M. Lang, Y. Jiang, Q. Shao, T. Nie, K. Murata, J. Tang, Y. Wang, L. He, T.-K. Lee, W.-L. Lee, and K. L. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 137201 (2014)

2014
[4]

C. Z. Chang, W. Zhao, D. Y. Kim, H. Zhang, B. A. Assaf, D. Heiman, S.-C. Zhang,C. Liu, M. H. W. Chan, and J. S. Moodera, Nat. Mater. 14, 473 (2015)

work page 2015
[5]

M. Mogi, R. Yoshimi, A. Tsukazaki, K. Yasuda, Y. Kozuka, K. S. Takahashi, and Y. Tokura, Appl. Phys. Lett. 107, 182401 (2015)

work page 2015
[6]

H. Weng, R. Yu, X. Hu, X. Dai, and Z. Fang, Adv. Phys. 64, 227 (2015)

2015
[7]

Y. Ren, Z. Qiao, and Q. Niu, Rep. Prog. Phys. 79, 066501 (2016)

2016

Show all 55 references

[8]

K. He, Y. Wang, and Q.-K. Xue, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 9, 329 (2018)

2018
[9]

F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2015 (1988)

1988
[10]

Onoda and N

M. Onoda and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 206601 (2003)

2003
[11]

C. X. Liu, X. L. Qi, X. Dai, Z. Fang, and S. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 146802 (2008)

2008
[12]

Wu, Phys

C. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 186807 (2008)

2008
[13]

R. Yu, W. Zhang, H. J. Zhang, S. C. Zhang, X. Dai, and Z. Fang, Science 329, 61-64 (2010)

2010
[14]

Z. H. Qiao, S. A. Yang, W. X. Feng, W.-K. Tse, J. Ding, Y. G. Yao, J.Wang, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B 82, 161414(R) (2010)

2010
[15]

Z. F. Wang, Z. Liu, and F. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 196801 (2013)

2013
[16]

K. F. Garrity and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 116802 (2013)

2013
[17]

J. Hu, Z. Zhu, and R. Wu, Nano Lett. 15, 2074 (2015)

2015
[18]

C. Fang, M. J. Gilbert, and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 046801 (2014)

2014
[19]

J. Wang, B. Lian, H. Zhang, Y. Xu, and S. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 136801 (2013)

2013
[20]

G. F. Zhang, Y. Li, and C. Wu, Phys. Rev. B 90, 075114 (2014)

2014
[21]

H. Z. Lu, A. Zhao, and S. Q. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 146802 (2013)

2013
[22]

M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 3045- 3067 (2010)

2010
[23]

X. L. Qi and S. C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057- 1110 (2011)

2011
[24]

Jungwirth, J

T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, J. Masek, J. Kucera and A. H. MacDonald, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 809-863 (2006)

2006
[25]

Y. S. Hor, P. Roushan, H. Beidenkopf, J. Seo, D. Qu, J. G. Checkelsky, L. A. Wray, D. Hsieh, Y. Xia, S. Y. Xu, D. Qian, M. Z. Hasan, N. P. Ong, A. Yazdani, and R. J. Cava, Phys. Rev. B 81, 195203 (2010)

2010
[26]

C. Niu, Y. Dai, M. Guo, W. Wei, Y. Ma, and B. Huang, Appl. Phys. Lett. 98, 252502 (2011)

2011
[27]

P. P. J. Haazen, J. B. Laloe, T. J. Nummy, H. J. M. Swagten, P. Jarillo-Herrero, D. Heiman, and J. S. Mood- era, Appl. Phys. Lett. 100, 082404 (2012)

2012
[28]

S. Qi, Z. Qiao, X. Deng, E. D. Cubuk, H. Chen, W. Zhu, E. Kaxiras, S. Zhang, X. Xu, and Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 056804 (2016)

2016
[29]

Y. Ou, C. Liu, G. Y. Jiang, Y. Feng, D. Y. Zhao, W. X. Wu, X. X. Wang, W. Li, C. L. Song, L. L. Wang, W. B. Wang, W. D. Wu, Y. Y. Wang, K. He, X. C. Ma, and Q. K. Xue, Adv. Mater. 30, 1703062 (2018)

2018
[30]

He and Q.-K

K. He and Q.-K. Xue, Natl. Sci. Rev. 6, 202 (2019)

2019
[31]

X. L. Qi, T. L. Hughes, and S. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 78, 195424 (2008)

2008
[32]

P. Wei, F. Katmis, B. A. Assaf, H. Steinberg, P. Jarillo- Herrero, D. Heiman, and J. S. Moodera, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 186807 (2013)

2013
[33]

C. Lee, F. Katmis, P. Jarillo-Herrero, J. S. Moodera, an d N. Gedik, Nat. Commun. 7, 12014 (2016)

2016
[34]

Katmis, V

F. Katmis, V. Lauter, F. S. Nogueira, B. A. Assaf, M. E. Jamer, P. Wei, B. Satpati, J. W. Freeland, I. Eremin, D. Heiman, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and J. S. Moodera, Nature 533, 513 (2016)

2016
[35]

L. D. Alegria, H. Ji, N. Yao, J. J. Clarke, R. J. Cava, and J. R. Petta, Appl. Phys. Lett. 105, 053512 (2014)

2014
[36]

M. Lang, M. Montazeri, M. C. Onbasli, X. Kou, Y. Fan, P. Upadhyaya, K. Yao, F. Liu, Y. Jiang, W. Jiang, K. L. Wong, G. Yu, J. Tang, T. Nie, L. He, R. N. Schwartz, Y. Wang, C. A. Ross, and K. L. Wang, Nano Lett. 14, 3459 (2014)

2014
[37]

Jiang, C.-Z

Z. Jiang, C.-Z. Chang, C. Tang, P. Wei, J. S. Moodera, and J. Shi, Nano Lett. 15, 5835 (2015)

2015
[38]

Tang, C.-Z

C. Tang, C.-Z. Chang, G. Zhao, Y. Liu, Z. Jiang, C.- X. Liu, M. R. McCartney, D. J. Smith, T. Chen, J. S. Moodera, and J. Shi, Sci. Adv. 3, e1700307 (2017)

2017
[39]

Zhang, M

D. Zhang, M. Shi, T. Zhu, D. Xing, H. Zhang, and J. Wang Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 206401 (2019)

2019
[40]

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, K. He, Chin. Phys. Lett. 36, 076801 (2019)

2019
[41]

J. Li, Y. Li, S. Du, Z. Wang, B. L. Gu, S. -C. Zhang, K. He, W. Duan, Y. Xu, Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw5685 (2019)

2019
[42]

H. Wang, D. Wang, Z. Yang, M. Shi, J. Ruan, D. Xing, J. Wang, and H. Zhang, arXiv 1907, 03380 (2019)

2019
[43]

Y. Deng, Y. Yu, M. Z. Shi, J. Wang, X. H. Chen, and Y. Zhang, arXiv 1904, 11468 (2019)

2019
[45]

M. M. Otrokov, T. V. Menshchikova, M. G. Vergniory, I. P. Rusinov, A. Y. Vyazovskaya, Y. M. Koroteev, G. Bihlmayer, A. Ernst, P. M. Echenique, A. Arnau, and E. V. Chulkov, 2D Mater. 4, 025082 (2017)

2017
[46]

P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Phys. Rev. B 50, 17953 (1994)

1994
[47]

Kresse and J

G. Kresse and J. Furthmuller, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169 (1996)

1996
[48]

J. P. Perdew, J. A. Chevary, S. H. Vosko, K. A. Jack- son, M. R. Pederson, D. J. Singh, and C. Fiolhais, Phys. Rev. B 46, 6671 (1992)

1992
[49]

V. I. Anisimov, J. Zaanen, and O. K. Anderson, Phys. Rev. B 44, 943 (1991)

1991
[50]

Grimme, J

S. Grimme, J. Comput. Chem. 27, 1787 (2006)

2006
[51]

Bergqvist, O

L. Bergqvist, O. Eriksson, J. Kudrnovsky, V. Drchal, A. Bergman, L. Nordstrom, and I. Turek, Phys. Rev. B 72, 195210 (2005)

2005
[52]

X. F. Kou, L. He, M. Lang, Y. Fan,K. Wong, Y. Jiang, T. Nie, W. Jiang, P. Upadhyaya, Z. K. Xing, Y. Wang, F. X. Xiu, R. N. Schwartz, and K. L. Wang, Nano Lett. 13, 4587 (2013)

2013
[53]

Y. G. Yao, L. Kleinman, A. H. MacDonald, J. Sinova, T. Jungwirth, D.-S. Wang, E. Wang, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 037204 (2004)

2004
[54]

D. Xiao, M. Chang, and Q. Niu, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1959-2007 (2010)

2010
[55]

Q. S. Wu, S. N. Zhang, H. -F. Song, M. Troyer, and A. A. Soluyanov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 224, 405-416 (2018)

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [44]

J. Wu, F. Liu, M. Sasase, K. Ienaga, Y. Obata, R. Yukawa, K. Horiba, H. Kumigashira, S. OKUMA, T. In- oshita, and H. Hosono, arXiv 1905, 02385 (2019). 7

work page 2019

[2] [1]

Chang, J

C.-Z. Chang, J. S. Zhang, X. Feng, J. Shen, Z. C. Zhang, M. Guo, K. Li, Y. Ou, P. Wei, L.-L. Wang, Z.-Q. Ji, Y. Feng, S. H. Ji, X. Chen, J. F. Jia, X. Dai, Z. Fang, S.-C. Zhang, K. He, Y. Y. Wang, L. Lu, X.-C. Ma, and Q.-K. Xue, Science 340, 167 (2013)

work page 2013

[3] [2]

J. G. Checkelsky, R. Yoshimi, A. Tsukazaki, K. S. Taka- hashi, Y. Kozuka, J. Falson, M. Kawasaki, and Y. Tokura, Nat. Phys. 10, 731 (2014)

2014

[4] [3]

Kou, S.-T

X. Kou, S.-T. Guo, Y. Fan, L. Pan, M. Lang, Y. Jiang, Q. Shao, T. Nie, K. Murata, J. Tang, Y. Wang, L. He, T.-K. Lee, W.-L. Lee, and K. L. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 137201 (2014)

2014

[5] [4]

C. Z. Chang, W. Zhao, D. Y. Kim, H. Zhang, B. A. Assaf, D. Heiman, S.-C. Zhang,C. Liu, M. H. W. Chan, and J. S. Moodera, Nat. Mater. 14, 473 (2015)

work page 2015

[6] [5]

M. Mogi, R. Yoshimi, A. Tsukazaki, K. Yasuda, Y. Kozuka, K. S. Takahashi, and Y. Tokura, Appl. Phys. Lett. 107, 182401 (2015)

work page 2015

[7] [6]

H. Weng, R. Yu, X. Hu, X. Dai, and Z. Fang, Adv. Phys. 64, 227 (2015)

2015

[8] [7]

Y. Ren, Z. Qiao, and Q. Niu, Rep. Prog. Phys. 79, 066501 (2016)

2016