Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Quasi-Two-Dimensional Magnon Identification in Antiferromagnetic FePS3 via Magneto-Raman Spectroscopy

T0 review · 1 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 Raman mode in FePS3 previously assigned to a phonon is actually a magnon, identified by its linear Zeeman splitting and strong temperature shift.

desk verdict Solid magneto-Raman identification of the 122 cm^-1 mode as a magnon, with Zeeman slopes matching g≈2; the 'quasi-2D magnon' title claim is inferred from bulk interlayer coupling, not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00608 v1 pith:VGOFYNLU submitted 2019-08-01 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Amber McCreary , Jeffrey R. Simpson , Thuc T. Mai , Robert D. McMichael , Jason E. Douglas , Nicholas Butch , Cindi Dennis , Rolando Valdes Aguilar
show 1 more author
Angela R. Hight Walker
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords magnonspin-waveRamanspectroscopymagneto-Ramanphonon2DmaterialsFePS3Isingantiferromagnet
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

Below the magnetic ordering temperature of bulk FePS3, a Raman-active mode at about $122~\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$ appears that earlier work treated as a phonon. This paper argues that the mode is actually a magnon, a quantized spin wave: as temperature falls it shifts much more strongly than phonons (6.2% over the measured range), and under a magnetic field along the spin direction it splits into two branches whose frequencies move linearly with opposite slopes of about $0.93~\mathrm{cm}^{-1}/\mathrm{T}$, matching the free-electron gyromagnetic ratio and giving $g \approx 1.99$. The same frequency matches a magnon seen in neutron scattering, and the linewidth gives a lifetime of at least about 10 ps. The paper also shows that the magnon appears in both parallel and crossed light polarization, which contradicts the old rule that one-magnon Raman scattering is purely antisymmetric; the authors explain this with the magnetic point group $2'/m$ and complex Raman tensor elements. Because FePS3 has weak interlayer exchange, the paper concludes that the magnon is quasi-two-dimensional, which would make it the first quasi-2D magnon verified by magneto-Raman spectroscopy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Zeeman splitting of an antiferromagnetic magnon. Using the standard two-sublattice macrospin model of antiferromagnetic resonance, the zero-field magnon frequency $\omega_{k=0}=\gamma\{(2H_E+H_A)H_A\}^{1/2}$ splits under a field $H_0$ parallel to the spins into $\omega = \omega_{k=0} \pm \gamma H_0$; because $\gamma = g\mu_B\mu_0/(2\pi\hbar)$ equals $0.9348~\mathrm{cm}^{-1}/\mathrm{T}$ for $g\approx 2.0023$, the observed slopes pin $g\approx 1.99$. This field-dependent splitting is the signature that separates a magnon from a phonon. The paper's second mechanism is the magnetic point group $2'/m$ of FePS3: the co-representation $D_{A'}$ with complex tensor elements reproduces the observed non-vanishing, two-fold-symmetric polarization intensity, whereas a real-valued antisymmetric tensor would require nodes and cross-polarized-only scattering.

What would settle it

Cool a single exfoliated layer of FePS3 below its magnetic ordering temperature and look for the $\approx 122~\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$ mode: if it disappears, changes energy by much more than weak interlayer coupling would allow, or fails to split with the same $\approx 0.93~\mathrm{cm}^{-1}/\mathrm{T}$ slope, the quasi-two-dimensional magnon identification is contradicted. Alternatively, measure the two branches with the field perpendicular to the spin axis; a spin-wave origin predicts a different, nonlinear field response, whereas a magnetoelastic artifact would not follow that pattern.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the $\psi_4$ mode of bulk FePS3 near $\approx 122~\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$ (3.7 THz, 15.1 meV), which appears only below the magnetic ordering temperature, is a one-magnon excitation rather than the zone-folded phonon it had been assigned to. Three independent signatures support the assignment: the mode's frequency shifts by up to 6.2% with temperature while phonons shift less than 1%; an applied magnetic field parallel to the ordered spins splits it into two branches whose frequencies change linearly at $0.93 \pm 0.02$ and $0.94 \pm 0.01~\mathrm{cm}^{-1}/\mathrm{T}$, matching the free-electron gyromagnetic ratio and yielding an effective magnon $g \approx 1.99 \pm 0.05$; and the mode sits at the same energy as the $\Gamma$-point magnon observed by neutron scattering. The paper further asserts that the magnon is quasi-two-dimensional because the weak interlayer exchange of FePS3 is expected to make the spin dynamics effectively two-dimensional, and that this is the first verification of a quasi-2D magnon in a layered material by magneto-Raman spectroscopy.

Load-bearing premise

The identification rests on the near-free-electron linear field splitting being a genuine Zeeman-split spin wave, and the quasi-two-dimensional label rests on weak interlayer exchange making the bulk magnon behave as if it lived in a plane.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $\psi_4$ mode can serve as a non-destructive optical probe of magnetic order in FePS3, including in flakes too thin for neutron scattering or bulk magnetometry.
  • Because the magnon sits near $122~\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$, roughly an order of magnitude higher than magnons in MnPS3, FePS3 becomes a candidate for faster magnon transport and switching in van der Waals devices.
  • Observing the magnon in parallel polarization shows that the once-general rule that one-magnon scattering appears only in crossed polarization is not universal, so polarization selection rules alone cannot identify magnons in honeycomb magnets such as $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$ and CrI$_3$.
  • Temperature- and magnetic-field-dependent Raman is shown to be a practical way to assign magnetic excitations in layered van der Waals magnets, complementing neutron scattering in bulk crystals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would be to measure $\psi_4$ in monolayer and bilayer FePS3: persistence of the same ~$122~\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$ mode with the same field slope would confirm that the magnon is genuinely layer-confined, while a layer-dependent energy shift would let the interlayer coupling be quantified.
  • The non-antisymmetric polarization pattern implies the same magneto-Raman test could help identify magnons in other magnetic van der Waals materials with complex magnetic point groups, where parallel-polarization scattering does not rule out a magnon origin.
  • The lower-bound lifetime of about 10 ps estimated from the $3~\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$ linewidth suggests FePS3 magnons may be short-lived compared with transport-scale magnons, and connecting this Raman lifetime to nonlocal magnon transport measurements would test whether the high magnon frequency translates into useful device speed.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports magneto-Raman spectroscopy measurements on bulk FePS3 and argues that a Raman mode at approximately 122 cm^-1 (labeled ψ4) that appears below the Néel temperature is a magnon, not a zone-folded phonon as previously assigned. The evidence includes a 6.2% frequency shift with temperature, a linear Zeeman splitting into two branches with slopes of 0.93 and 0.94 cm^-1/T, an inferred g-factor of approximately 1.99, and agreement with a neutron-scattering magnon at 15.1 meV. The authors also study the polarization dependence of the mode, observe it in both parallel and crossed configurations, and use the magnetic point group 2'/m with complex tensor elements to explain the selection rules. They conclude that this constitutes the first verification of a quasi-2D magnon by magneto-Raman spectroscopy.

Significance. The central magnon assignment is well supported and is the paper's main contribution: the field-induced linear splitting with slopes matching the free-electron gyromagnetic ratio, the energy match to the neutron-scattering magnon, and the anomalously large temperature shift together make the identification of ψ4 as a magnon convincing. The polarization study provides an interesting counterexample to the Fleury-Loudon antisymmetric-tensor rule and offers a symmetry-based explanation using the magnetic point group. The paper is clearly written and the experimental data are presented in a way that is amenable to independent fitting. The main weakness is that the title's 'quasi-two-dimensional magnon' claim is not directly evidenced by the bulk measurements; the quasi-2D character is an inference from the known weak interlayer coupling and is appropriately hedged in the text but overstated in the title.

major comments (1)
  1. [Title; Section III (Conclusions)] The phrase 'Quasi-Two-Dimensional Magnon Identification' overstates the evidence. All magneto-Raman measurements are performed on bulk FePS3, and the quasi-2D character is inferred solely from the known weak interlayer exchange coupling of the parent compound; the text itself uses 'expected' (Introduction) and 'indicates' (Section III). No layer-resolved measurement, no c-axis magnon dispersion, and no quantitative interlayer exchange parameter for the ≈122 cm^-1 branch is reported. In an antiferromagnet with antiferromagnetic interlayer coupling, the zone-center magnon frequency depends on J_c through the exchange field, so observing a bulk magnon does not by itself establish that the magnon is dynamically two-dimensional. The magnon assignment itself is well supported, but the title and the 'first verification of a quasi-2D magnon' claim should be revised to describe a bulk magnon in quasi-two-dimensional FePS3, or be backed by additional layer-dependent or k_z-dispersive evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'frequency of of approximately' contains a duplicated 'of' and should be corrected.
  2. [Section II.D] The conversion from the FWHM of approximately 3 cm^-1 to a magnon lifetime on the order of 10 ps should be shown explicitly, since the raw values do not make the relation transparent to readers.
  3. [Figure 4b] The normalization of the polar-plot intensities is unclear; the statement that the radial lines span from 0.1 to 1 should specify whether intensities are normalized to the maximum and whether any instrumental or thermal factors were removed.
  4. [Section II.E] The statement that 'multiple combinations of the amplitude and phase factors reproduce the polar plot' is not followed by a quantitative fit or a representative set of parameters; if this is intended as more than a qualitative demonstration, the authors should include the fit and its uncertainties.
  5. [Section II.E] The assertion that the magnon 'can only have the same symmetry as J_x and J_y' is presented as a deduction, but the authors immediately note that the relevant magnetic space group transformation tables are not available; this step should be explicitly labeled as an assumption or conjecture rather than a derivation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the magnon assignment is tested against an external Keffer-Kittel field-splitting prediction, neutron-scattering energies, and temperature dependence; the quasi-2D title claim is an unsupported inference, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that the Raman mode ψ4 at ≈122 cm⁻¹ is a magnon, is supported by an independently parameterized antiferromagnetic-resonance model rather than by fitting the conclusion into the input. Equation (1), ω_{k=0} = γ{(2H_E + H_A)H_A}^{1/2} ± γH_0, is taken from Keffer and Kittel with γ fixed by the free-electron gyromagnetic ratio γ ≈ 0.9348 cm⁻¹/T {g ≈ 2.0023}; the measured field-splitting slopes, 0.93 ± 0.02 cm⁻¹/T and 0.94 ± 0.01 cm⁻¹/T, are compared with this external prediction, and the extracted g ≈ 1.99 is a derived parameter, not an input. The zero-field frequency independently matches the neutron-scattering magnon at ≈15.1 meV reported in Refs. [53] and [61], and the 6.2% temperature shift is contrasted with the 0.01–0.57% shifts of the phonon modes; these are falsifiable comparisons, not tautologies. The symmetry analysis invokes the magnetic point group 2'/m with co-representations from the literature and acknowledges that 'multiple combinations of the amplitude and phase factors reproduce the polar plot,' which is an underdetermined post-hoc description rather than a circular prediction; it is not load-bearing for the magnon identification itself. The only possible concern, the title's 'quasi-two-dimensional magnon' claim, is explicitly presented as an expectation from bulk properties ('the magnon observed herein is also expected to be quasi-2D'; 'The quasi-2D magnetic nature of bulk FePS3 ... indicates that the magnon in bulk FePS3 is also quasi-2D') and is not derived from the Raman data by construction. The absence of layer-resolved or kz-dispersive evidence is a support gap and a correctness risk, but not a circular step. The paper contains self-citations only as general Raman-technique examples (e.g., Ref. [38]), not as load-bearing support for the magnon assignment. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central magnon identification rests on the Keffer-Kittel antiferromagnetic resonance model (Eq. 1) with the free-electron gyromagnetic ratio as an external input. The fitted slopes are measured quantities compared to the model, not parameters used to construct the model. The symmetry analysis introduces non-unique complex tensor phase factors and relies on the magnetic point group assignment 2'/m; the transformation of the magnon under the magnetic group is assumed but not derived. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • slope of ψ4^(1) frequency vs field = 0.93 ± 0.02 cm^-1/T
    Linear fit to the field dependence of the lower-energy split component; used to derive the magnon g-factor and to confirm the Zeeman splitting predicted by Eq. 1.
  • slope of ψ4^(2) frequency vs field = 0.94 ± 0.01 cm^-1/T
    Linear fit for the higher-energy split component; combined with the first slope to estimate g ≈ 1.99 ± 0.05.
  • complex Raman tensor phase factors δ_B, δ_D, δ_F = not uniquely determined
    In Section II.E, the authors state that multiple combinations of amplitude and phase factors reproduce the polar plot of magnon intensity; these are free parameters introduced to model the non-nodal polarization dependence, but no unique values are extracted.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Keffer-Kittel two-sublattice model gives the antiferromagnetic resonance frequencies ω = γ{(2H_E+H_A)H_A}^(1/2) ± γH_0 (Eq. 1).
    Used to predict that the magnon splits linearly with field at slope ±γ; the model is a standard classical description of AFMR.
  • domain assumption The magnetic point group of FePS3 is 2'/m, with Raman co-representations D_A' and D_A'' as given by Cracknell.
    Used to derive the polarization selection rules; the group assignment is taken from prior crystallographic literature.
  • ad hoc to paper The magnon transforms like the rotation generators J_x, J_y in the magnetic point group.
    Invoked in Section II.E to connect the magnon to the Raman tensor, but the authors state that transformations for magnetic space groups were not found in the literature and are not derived here.
  • domain assumption Complex tensor elements with non-zero phases are required for absorbing materials (ref 70).
    Used to remove the nodes in the predicted polarization pattern and account for the observed non-zero minimum intensity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasi-Two-Dimensional Magnon Identification in Antiferromagnetic FePS3 via Magneto-Raman Spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VGOFYNLU

@misc{pith2026190800608,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasi-Two-Dimensional Magnon Identification in Antiferromagnetic FePS3 via Magneto-Raman Spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VGOFYNLU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00608}
}
read the original abstract

Recently it was discovered that van der Waals-bonded magnetic materials retain long range magnetic ordering down to a single layer, opening many avenues in fundamental physics and potential applications of these fascinating materials. One such material is FePS3, a large spin (S=2) Mott insulator where the Fe atoms form a honeycomb lattice. In the bulk, FePS3 has been shown to be a quasi-two-dimensional-Ising antiferromagnet, with additional features in the Raman spectra emerging below the Neel temperature of approximately 120 K. Using magneto-Raman spectroscopy as an optical probe of magnetic structure, we show that one of these Raman-active modes in the magnetically ordered state is actually a magnon with a frequency of of approximately 3.7 THz (122 cm-1). Contrary to previous work, which interpreted this feature as a phonon, our Raman data shows the expected frequency shifting and splitting of the magnon as a function of temperature and magnetic field, respectively, where we determine the g-factor to be approximately 2. In addition, the symmetry behavior of the magnon is studied by polarization-dependent Raman spectroscopy and explained using the magnetic point group of FePS3.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00608 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Magnetic-field dependent Raman of FePS3 at T = 5K, showing the splitting of ψ4 into two components, ψ4 (1) and ψ4 (2) , where the frequency of ψ4 (1) (ψ4 (2) ) decreases (increases) with increasing magnetic field. (b) Frequency vs. magnetic field of ψ4 (1) and ψ4 (2) with the slopes of the linear fits for the two branches. (c) If we consider two magnetization sublattices M1 (pink) and M2 (green) in FePS3, in the… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov. Electric Field Effect in Atomically Thin Carbon Films. Science 306, 666-669 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Q. H. Wang, K. Kalantar-Zadeh, A. Kis, J. N. Coleman, and M. S. Strano. Electronics and Optoelectronics of Two-Dimensional Transition Metal Dichalcogenides. Nature Nanotechnol. 7, 699-712 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. Mishchenko, A. Carvalho, and A. H. C. Neto. 2D Materials and Van der Waals Heterostructures. Science 353, aac9439 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    D. S. Schulman, A. J. Arnold, A. Razavieh, J. Nasr, and S. Das. The Prospect of Two- Dimensional Heterostructures: A Review of Recent Breakthroughs. IEEE Nanotechnol. Mag. 11, 6-17 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Z. Lin, A. McCreary, N. Briggs, S. Subramanian, K. Zhang, Y. Sun, X. Li, N. J. Borys, H. Yuan, S. K. Fullteron-Shirey, et al. 2D Materials Advances: From Large Scale Synthesis and Controlled Heterostructures to Improved Characterization Techniques, Defects and Applications. 2D Mater. 3, 042001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    K. F. Mak and J. Shan. Photonics and Optoelectronics of 2D Semiconductor Transition Metal Dichalcogenides. Nat. Photonics 10, 216-226 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    J. R. Schaibley, H. Yu, G. Clark, P. Rivera, J. S. Ross, K. L. Seyler, W. Yao, and X. Xu. Valleytronics in 2D Materials. Nat. Rev. Mater. 1, 16055 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Manzeli, D

    S. Manzeli, D. Ovchinnikov, D. Pasquier, O. V. Yazyev, and A. Kis. 2D Transition Metal Dichalcogenides. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2, 17033 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Akinwande, C

    D. Akinwande, C. J. Brennan, J. S. Bunch, P. Egberts, J. R. Felts, H. Gao, R. Huang, J. - S. Kim, T. Li, Y. Li, et al. A Review on Mechanics and Mechanical Properties of 2D Materials-Graphene and Beyond. Extreme Mech. Lett. 13, 42-77 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    K. S. Burch, D. Mandrus, and J. G. Park. Magnetism in Two-Dimensional van der Waals Materials. Nature 563, 47-52 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Gong, and X

    C. Gong, and X. Zhang. Two-Dimensional Magnetic Crystals and Emergent Heterostructure Devices. Science 363, 706-717 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    C. Lee, X. D. Wei, J. W. Kysar, and J. Hone. Measurement of the Elastic Properties and Antrinsic Strength of Monolayer Graphene. Science 321, 385-388 (2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    Castellanos-Gomez, M

    A. Castellanos-Gomez, M. Poot, G. A. Steele, H. S. J. van der Zant, N. Agrait, and G. Rubio-Bollinger. Elastic Properties of Freely Suspended MoS2 Nanosheets. Adv. Mater. 24, 772-775 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Huang, G

    B. Huang, G. Clark, D. R. Klein, D. MacNeill, E. Navarro-Moratalla, K. L. Seyler, N. Wilson, M. A. McGuire, D. H. Cobden, D. Xiao, et al. Electrical Control of 2D Magnetism in Bilayer CrI3. Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 544-548 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    S. W. Jiang, J. Shan, J. and K. F. Mak. Electric-Field Switching of Two-Dimensional van der Waals Magnets. Nat. Mater. 17, 406-410 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    J. S. Ross, P. Klement, A. M. Jones, N. J. Ghimire, J. Yan, D. G. Mandrus, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, K. Kitamura, W. Yao, et al. Electrically Tunable Excitonic Light-Emitting Diodes Based on Monolayer WSe2 p-n Junctions. Nat. Nanotechnol. 9, 268-272 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Akinwande, N

    D. Akinwande, N. Petrone, and J. Hone. Two-Dimensional Flexible Nanoelectronics. Nat. Commun. 5, 5678 (2014). 21

    2014

  10. [18]

    Zhang, H

    S. Zhang, H. M. Hill, K. Moudgil, C. A. Richter, A. R. Hight Walker, S. Barlow, S. R. Marder, C. A. Hacker, and S. J. Pookpanratana. Controllable, Wide-Ranging n-Doping and p-Doping of Monolayer Group 6 Transition-Metal Disulfides and Diselenides. Adv. Mater. 30, 1802991 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Y. Q. Guo, K. Xu, C. Z. Wu, J. Y. Zhao, and Y. Xie. Surface Chemical-Modification for Engineering the Intrinsic Physical Properties of Inorganic Two-Dimensional Nanomaterials. Chem. Soc. Rev. 44, 637-646 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    M. Y. Li, C. H. Chen, Y. M. Shi, and L. J. Li. Heterostructures Based on Two- Dimensional Layered Materials and Their Potential Applications. Mater. Today 19, 322- 335 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    A. V. Chumak, V. I. Vasyuchka, A. A. Serga, and B. Hillebrands, B. Magnon Spintronics. Nat. Phys. 11, 453-461 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    W. Y. Xing, L. Qiu, X. Wang, Y. Yao, Y. Ma, R. Cai, S. Jia, X. C. Xie, and W. Han. Magnon Transport in Quasi-Two-Dimensional van der Waals Antiferromagnets. Phys. Rev. X 9, 011026 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    N. D. Mermin and H. Wagner. Absence of Ferromagnetism or Antiferromagnetism in One- or Two-Dimensional Isotropic Heisenberg Models. Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 1133-1136 (1966)

    1966

  16. [24]

    C. Gong, L. Li, Z. Li, H. Ji, A. Stern, Y. Xia, T. Cao, W. Bao, C. Wang, Y. Wang, et al. Discovery of Intrinsic Ferromagnetism in Two-Dimensional van der Waals Crystals. Nature 546, 265-269 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Huang, G

    B. Huang, G. Clark, E. Navarro-Moratalla, D. Klein, R. Cheng, K. Seyler, D. Zhong, E. Schmidgall, M. A. McGuire, D. H. Cobden, et al. Layer-Dependent Ferromagnetism in a van der Waals Crystal Down to the Monolayer Limit. Nature 546, 270-273 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    S. W. Jiang, L. Z. Li, Z. F. Wang, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan. Controlling Magnetism in 2D CrI3 by Electrostatic Doping. Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 549-553 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    P. A. Joy and S. Vasudevan. Magnetism in the Layered Transition-Metal Thiophosphates MPS3 (M = Mn, Fe, and Ni). Phys. Rev. B 46, 5425-5433 (1992)

    1992

  20. [28]

    Balkanski, M

    M. Balkanski, M. Jouanne, G. Ouvrard, and M. Scagliotti. Effects due to Spin Ordering in Layered MPX3 Compounds Revealed by Inelastic Light-Scattering. J. Phys. C-Solid State 20, 4397-4413 (1987)

    1987

  21. [29]

    B. L. Chittari, Y. Park, D. Lee, M. Han, A. H. MacDonald, E. Hwang, and J. Jung. Electronic and Magnetic Properties of Single-layer MPX3 Metal Phosphorous Trichalcogenides. Phys. Rev. B 94, 184428 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    C. R. S. Haines, M. J. Coak, A. R. Wildes, G. I. Lampronti, C. Liu, P. Nahai-Williamson, H. Hamidov, D. Daisenberger, and S. S. Saxena. Pressure-Induced Electronic and Structural Phase Evolution in the van der Waals Compound FePS3. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 266801 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Tsurubayashi, K

    M. Tsurubayashi, K. Kodama, M. Kano, K. Ishigaki, Y. Uwatoko, T. Watanabe, K. Takase, and T. Takano. Metal-Insulator Transition in Mott-Insulator FePS3. AIP Adv. 8, 101307 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    K. C. Rule, G. J. McIntyre, S. J. Kennedy, and T. J. Hicks. Single-Crystal and Powder Neutron Diffraction Experiments on FePS3: Search for the Magnetic Structure. Phys. Rev. B 76, 134402 (2007). 22

    2007

  25. [33]

    X. -L. Li, X. -F. Qiao, W. -P. Han, Y. Lu, Q. -H. Tan, X. -L. Liu, and P. -H. Tan. Layer Number Identification of Intrinsic and Defective Multilayered Graphenes Up to 100 Layers by the Raman Mode Intensity from Substrates. Nanoscale 7, 8135-8141 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    L. B. Liang, J. Zhang, B. G. Sumpter, Q. -H. Tan, P. -H. Tan, and V. Meunier. Low- Frequency Shear and Layer-Breathing Modes in Raman Scattering of Two-Dimensional Materials. ACS Nano 11, 11777-11802 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    T. M. G. Mohiuddin, A. Lombardo, R. R. Nair, A. Bonetti, G. Savini, R. Jalil, N. Bonini, D. M. Basko, C. Galiotis, N. Marzari, et al. Uniaxial Strain in Graphene by Raman Spectroscopy: G Peak Splitting, Gruneisen Parameters, and Sample Orientation. Phys. Rev. B 79, 205433 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    Beams, L

    R. Beams, L. G. Cancado, and L. Novotny. Raman Characterization of Defects and Dopants in Graphene. J. Phys.-Condens. Mat. 27, 083002 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    del Corro, A

    E. del Corro, A. Botello-Mendez, Y. Gillet, A. L. lias, H. Terrones, S. Feng, C. Fantini, D. RHodes, N. Pradhan, L. Balicas et al. Atypical Exciton-Phonon Interactions in WS2 and WSe2 Monolayers Revealed by Resonance Raman Spectroscopy. Nano Lett. 16, 2363-2368, (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    McCreary, J

    A. McCreary, J. R. Simpson, Y. Wang, D. Rhodes, K. Fujisawa, L. Balicas, M. Dubey, V. H. Crespi, M. Terrones, and A. R. Hight Walker. Intricate Resonant Raman Response in Anisotropic ReS2. Nano Lett. 17, 5897-5907 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    K. N. Zhang, C. Bao, Q. Gu, X. Ren, H. Zhang, K. Deng, Y. Wu, Y. Li, J. Feng, and S. Zhou. Raman Signatures of Inversion Symmetry Breaking and Structural Phase Transition in Type-II Weyl Semimetal MoTe2. Nat. Commun. 7, 13552 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Y. Tian, M. J. Gray, H. W. Ji, R. J. Cava, K. S. Burch. Magneto-Elastic Coupling in a Potential Ferromagnetic 2D Atomic Crystal. 2D Mater. 3, 025035 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    P. A. Fleury and R. Loudon. Scattering of Light By One- and Two-Magnon Excitations. Phys. Rev. 166, 514-530 (1968)

    1968

  34. [42]

    Sethi, T

    A. Sethi, T. Byrum, R. D. McAuliffe, S. L. Gleason, J. E. Slimak, D. P. Shoemaker, and S. L. Cooper. Magnons and Magnetodielectric Effects in CoCr2O4: Raman Scattering Studies. Phy. Rev. B 95, 174413 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Scagliotti, M

    M. Scagliotti, M. Jouanne, M. Balkanski, G. Ouvrard, and G. Benedek. Raman- Scattering in Antiferromagnetic FePS3 and FePSe3 Crystals. Phys. Rev. B 35, 7097-7104 (1987)

    1987

  36. [44]

    Bernasconi, G

    M. Bernasconi, G. L. Marra, G. Benedek, L. Miglio, M. Jouanne, C. Julien, M. Scagliotti, and M. Balkanski. Lattice-Dynamics of Layered MPX3 (M=Mn, Fe, Ni, Zn, X=S, Se) Compounds. Phys. Rev. B 38, 12089-12099 (1988)

    1988

  37. [45]

    C. -T. Kuo, M. Neumann, K. Balamurugan, H. J. Park, S. Kang, H. W. Shiu, J. H. Kang, B. H. Hong, M. Han, T. W. Noh, and J. -G. Park. Exfoliation and Raman Spectroscopic Fingerprint of Few-Layer NiPS3 van der Waals Crystals. Sci. Rep. 6, 20904 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    J. -U. Lee, S. Lee, S. H. Ryoo, S. Kang, T. Y. Kim, P. Kim, C. -H. Park, J. -G. Park, and H. Cheong. Ising-Type Magnetic Ordering in Atomically Thin FePS3. Nano Lett. 16, 7433-7438 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    X. Z. Wang, K. Du, Y. Y. F. Liu, P. Hu, J. Zhang, Q. Zhang, M. H. S. Owen, X. Lu, C. K. Gan, and P. Sengupta. Raman Spectroscopy of Atomically Thin Two-Dimensional Magnetic Iron Phosphorus Trisulfide (FePS3) Crystals. 2D Mater. 3, 031009 (2016). 23

    2016

  40. [48]

    A. R. Wildes, B. Roessli, B. Lebech, and W. Godfrey. Spin Waves and the Critical Behaviour of the Magnetization in MnPS3. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 10, 6417-6428 (1998)

    1998

  41. [49]

    K. S. Novoselov, D. Jiang, F. Schedin, T. J. Booth, V. V. Khotkevich, S. V. Morozov, and A. K. Geim. Two-Dimensional Atomic Crystals. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 10451- 10453 (2005)

    2005

  42. [50]

    Leflem, R

    G. Leflem, R. Brec, G. Ouvard, A. Louisy, and P. Segransan. Magnetic-Interactions in the Layer Compounds MPX3 (M=Mn, Fe, Ni; X=S, Se). J. Phys. Chem. Solids 43, 455- 461 (1982)

    1982

  43. [51]

    Kurosawa, S

    K. Kurosawa, S. Saito, and Y. Yamaguchi. Neutron-Diffraction Study on MnPS3 and FePS3. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 52, 3919-3926 (1983)

    1983

  44. [52]

    K. C. Rule, S. J. Kennedy, D. J. Goossens, A. M. Mulders, and T. J. Hicks. Contrasting Antiferromagnetic Order Between FePS3 and MnPS3. Appl. Phys. A-Mater. 74, S811- S813 (2002)

    2002

  45. [53]

    Lancon, H

    D. Lancon, H. C. Walker, E. Ressouche, B. Ouladdiaf, K. C. Rule, G. J. McIntyre, T. J. Hicks, H. M. Ronnow, and A. R. Wildes. Magnetic Structure and Magnon Dynamics of the Quasi-Two-Dimensional Antiferromagnet FePS3. Phys. Rev. B 94, 214407 (2016)

    2016

  46. [54]

    Hashemi, H

    A. Hashemi, H. P. Komsa, M. Puska, and A. V. Krasheninnikov. Vibrational Properties of Metal Phosphorus Trichalcogenides from First-Principles Calculations. J. Phys. Chem. C 121, 27207-27217 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    Scagliotti, M

    M. Scagliotti, M. Jouanne, M. Balkanski, and G. Ouvrard. Spin Dependent Phonon Raman-Scattering in Antiferromagnetic FePS3 Layer-Type Compound. Solid State Commun. 54, 291-294 (1985)

    1985

  48. [56]

    Sekine, M

    T. Sekine, M. Jouanne, C. Julien, and M. Balkanski. Light-Scattering Study of Dynamic Behavior of Antiferromagnetic Spins in the Layered Magnetic Semiconductor FePS3. Phys. Rev. B 42, 8382-8393 (1990)

    1990

  49. [57]

    P. A. Fleury, S. P. S. Porto, L. E. Cheesman, and H. J. Guggenheim. Light Scattering by Spin Waves in FeF2. Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 84-87 (1966)

    1966

  50. [58]

    R. C. Ohlmann and M. Tinkham. Antiferromagnetic Resonance in FeF2 at Far-Infrared Frequencies. Phys. Rev. 123, 425-434 (1961)

    1961

  51. [59]

    P. A. Fleury. Paramagnetic Spin Waves and Correlation Functions in NiF2. Phys. Rev. 180, 591-593 (1969)

    1969

  52. [60]

    F. M. Johnson and A. H. Nethercot. Antiferromagnetic Resonance in MnF2. Phys. Rev. 114, 705-716 (1959)

    1959

  53. [61]

    A. R. Wildes, K. C. Rule, R. I. Bewley, M. Enderle and T. J. Hicks. The Magnon Dynamics and Spin Exchange Parameters of FePS3. J. Phys.-Condens. Mat. 24, 416004 (2012)

    2012

  54. [62]

    Keffer and C

    F. Keffer and C. Kittel. Theory of Antiferromagnetic Resonance. Phys. Rev. 85, 329-337 (1952)

    1952

  55. [63]

    P. J. Mohr, D. B. Newell, and B. N. Taylor. CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants: 2014. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 45, 043102 (2016)

    2016

  56. [64]

    R. M. White, R. J. Nemanich, and C. Tsang. Raman-Scattering from Magnons in Rare- Earth Ortho-Ferrites. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 15-18, 773-774 (1980)

    1980

  57. [65]

    Venugopalan, A

    S. Venugopalan, A. Petrou, R. R. Galazka, A. K. Ramdas, and S. Rodriguez. Raman- Scattering by Phonons and Magnons in Semimagnetic Semiconductors - Cd1-xMnxTe. Phys. Rev. B 25, 2681-2696 (1982). 24

    1982

  58. [66]

    D. I. Khomskii. Transition Metal Compounds. (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    2014

  59. [67]

    J. W. Stout and S. A. Reed. The Crystal Structure of MnF2, FeF2, CoF2, NiF2 and ZnF2. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 76, 5279-5281 (1954)

    1954

  60. [68]

    Jernberg, S

    P. Jernberg, S. Bjarman, and R. Wappling. FePS3: A First-Order Phase Transition in a “2D” Ising Antiferromagnet. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 46, 178-190 (1984)

    1984

  61. [69]

    A. P. Cracknell. Scattering Matrices for Raman Effect in Magnetic Crystals. J. Physics Part C Solid 2, 500-511 (1969)

    1969

  62. [70]

    H. B. Ribeiro, M. A. Pimenta, C. J. S. de Matos, R. L. Moreira, A. S. Rodin, J. D. Zapata, E. A. T. de Souza, and A. H. C. Neto. Unusual Angular Dependence of the Raman Response in Black Phosphorus. ACS Nano 9, 4270-4276 (2015)

    2015

  63. [71]

    W. Jin, H. H. kim, Z. Ye, S. Li, P. Rezaie, F. Diaz, S. Siddiq, E. Wauer, B. Yang, C. Li, S. Tian, et al. Raman Fingerprint of Two Terahertz Spin Wave Branches in a Two- Dimensional Honeycomb Ising Ferromagnet. Nat. Commun. 9, 5122 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    M. I. Aroyo, A. Kirov, C. Capillas, J. M. Perez-Mato, and H. Wondratschek. Bilbao Crystallographic Server: II. Representations of Crystallographic Point Groups and Space Groups. Acta Crystallogr. A 62, 115-128 (2006)

    2006

  65. [73]

    M. I. Aroyo, J. M. Perez-Mato, C. Capillas, E. Kroumova, S. Ivantchev, G. Madariaga, A. Kirov, H. Wondratschek. Bilbao Crystallographic Server: I. Databases and Crystallographic Computing Programs. Z. Kristallogr. 221, 15-27 (2006)

    2006

  66. [74]

    M. I. Aroyo, A. Kirov, C. Capillas, J. M. Perez-Mato, and H. Wondratschek. Crystallography Online: Bilbao Crystallographic Server. Bulg. Chem. Commun. 43, 183-197 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

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