Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Anomalous Hall effect mechanisms in quasi-2D van der Waals ferromagnet Fe0.29TaS2

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 In the layered ferromagnet Fe0.29TaS2, the dominant anomalous Hall mechanism changes from skew scattering in bulk crystals to intrinsic Berry-curvature contribution in thin flakes, crossing over at a channel conductivity near 8 × 10^3 Ω⁻¹…

desk verdict Real, useful thickness-dependent AHE data in Fe0.29TaS2, but the paper overreaches by calling the constant term intrinsic when side jump is equally consistent with the data. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09280 v1 pith:QAYF27BZ submitted 2019-08-25 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Ranran Cai , Wenyu Xing , Huibin Zhou , Boning Li , Yangyang Chen , Yunyan Yao , Yang Ma , X. C. Xie
show 2 more authors
Shuang Jia Wei Han
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 72.15.Gd73.50.Jt75.70.-i
keywords anomalousHalleffectvanderWaalsferromagnetFe0.29TaS2skewscatteringBerrycurvatureconductivityscalingtwo-dimensionalmagnetismcoercivefield
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

This paper establishes that in the layered van der Waals ferromagnet Fe0.29TaS2, the mechanism behind the anomalous Hall effect depends on sample thickness. In bulk single crystals, the dominant mechanism is extrinsic skew scattering; in flakes as thin as 14 nm, the dominant mechanism is the intrinsic Berry-curvature contribution. The crossover is tied to the channel conductivity, around $8 \times 10^3\ \Omega^{-1}\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$, rather than to thickness by itself. The authors show this by measuring Hall bars from 14 nm to bulk and fitting the conductivity scaling $\sigma_{\mathrm{AHE}}^* = \alpha_0 \sigma_{xx} + \beta_0$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the conductivity scaling law $\sigma_{\mathrm{AHE}} \approx \sigma_{xx}^\gamma$, which distinguishes skew scattering ($\gamma = 1$), side jump ($\gamma = 0$), and intrinsic Berry-curvature contribution ($\gamma = 0$). To separate contributions quantitatively, the paper uses the two-term expression $\sigma_{\mathrm{AHE}}^* = \alpha_0 \sigma_{xx} + \beta_0$, where $\sigma_{\mathrm{AHE}}^*$ is the anomalous Hall conductivity normalized by the temperature-dependent magnetization, $\alpha_0$ is the skew-scattering coefficient and $\beta_0$ the intrinsic coefficient. The normalization step relies on the bulk magnetization law $M(T) = C T^2$ and on the linear dependence of both $\alpha(M)$ and $\beta(M)$ on magnetization. This machinery turns a series of Hall-bar measurements into a thickness-resolved map of anomalous Hall effect mechanisms.

What would settle it

Directly measure the saturation magnetization versus temperature on a 14-nm flake, then re-plot $\sigma_{\mathrm{AHE}}^*$ versus $\sigma_{xx}$ using that flake-specific $M(T)$; if the flat intrinsic plateau disappears or becomes strongly linear, the paper's central claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the dominant anomalous Hall effect mechanism in Fe0.29TaS2 changes from extrinsic skew scattering in bulk samples to an intrinsic Berry-curvature contribution in thin flakes. This is demonstrated by the scaling between the normalized anomalous Hall conductivity $\sigma_{\mathrm{AHE}}^*$ and the channel conductivity $\sigma_{xx}$: the 14-nm flake shows $\sigma_{\mathrm{AHE}}^*$ almost independent of $\sigma_{xx}$ ($\gamma \approx 0$), while bulk Fe0.29TaS2 shows a linear rise ($\gamma \approx 1$). Quantitatively, the skew-scattering coefficient $\alpha_0$ extracted from $\sigma_{\mathrm{AHE}}^* = \alpha_0 \sigma_{xx} + \beta_0$ is negligible for the 14-nm flake and grows to about $0.053$ for bulk, while the intrinsic coefficient $\beta_0$ is about $43\ \Omega^{-1}\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$ for 14 nm and about $120\ \Omega^{-1}\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$ for bulk. The authors further place the mechanism crossover at $\sigma_{xx} \approx 8 \times 10^3\ \Omega^{-1}\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$, consistent with the theoretical criterion that skew scattering dominates when the spin-orbit energy is much larger than $h/\tau$.

Load-bearing premise

The central load-bearing premise is that the bulk single-crystal magnetization law $M(T) = C T^2$ accurately describes every flake thickness, since only the Curie temperature (about 80 K) was verified across thicknesses and the anomalous Hall conductivity is normalized with this bulk curve.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Thickness becomes a practical control knob: the same Fe0.29TaS2 material can be placed in the intrinsic Berry-curvature regime (14-nm flake) or the skew-scattering regime (bulk crystal).
  • Devices with channel conductivity below about $8 \times 10^3\ \Omega^{-1}\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$ should exhibit a mostly intrinsic anomalous Hall effect, while higher-conductivity devices should be dominated by skew scattering.
  • The coercive field drops to roughly 0.04 T at 10 K in the 14-nm flake, so thin Fe0.29TaS2 flakes switch magnetization in much smaller perpendicular fields than bulk crystals.
  • The near-constant $\sigma_{\mathrm{AHE}}^*$ in thin flakes provides a way to probe Berry-curvature physics in a van der Waals ferromagnet without changing chemical composition.
  • The thickness-dependent intrinsic coefficient $\beta_0$, together with thickness-dependent carrier density, points to Fermi-level-dependent Berry curvature in Fe0.29TaS2.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same conductivity-based crossover may operate in other intercalated van der Waals ferromagnets; if so, electrostatic gating or doping could switch anomalous Hall effect mechanisms within a single device, something the paper does not test.
  • The paper's normalization assumes the bulk magnetization curve $M(T) = C T^2$ holds for all flakes; direct flake magnetization measurements would show whether the inferred crossover is an artifact of that assumption.
  • The two-term fit does not separately resolve the side-jump contribution, which also gives $\gamma=0$; distinguishing side jump from the intrinsic Berry-curvature term would require additional measurements such as temperature-dependent scattering-time tuning.
  • A testable extension is to tune carrier density by gating a single flake across the $\sigma_{xx} \approx 8 \times 10^3\ \Omega^{-1}\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$ boundary and watch the Hall scaling exponent change from 0 to 1.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports transport and anomalous Hall effect (AHE) measurements on Fe0.29TaS2 devices with thicknesses from 14 nm to bulk single crystal. From the scaling between the normalized anomalous Hall conductivity sigma_AHE* and the channel conductivity sigma_xx, the authors find that the 14-nm flake exhibits an approximately constant sigma_AHE*, which they attribute to the intrinsic Berry-curvature contribution, whereas the bulk device shows a linear increase, which they attribute to skew scattering. They place a crossover at sigma_xx about 8 x 10^3 ohm^-1 cm^-1 and also report a strong thickness dependence of the coercive field. The paper proposes that AHE mechanisms in this quasi-2D van der Waals ferromagnet are controlled by the channel conductivity.

Significance. The systematic thickness series and the use of a standard two-channel scaling law are strengths, and the qualitative trend from a linear sigma_AHE* versus sigma_xx relation in bulk to a nearly flat one in thin flakes is visually clear. If the attribution to intrinsic Berry curvature could be firmly established, the study would be a useful addition to the AHE literature on van der Waals ferromagnets. However, the central physical attribution is currently underdetermined: the fitted constant term beta0 is equally consistent with the side-jump mechanism, which the authors themselves note has the same power-law exponent gamma=0. The magnetization normalization also relies on bulk M(T) data that are not verified for thin flakes. These issues are load-bearing for the abstract and conclusion, so the manuscript needs revision before publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (3), Fig. 4] Equation (3) fits sigma_AHE* = alpha0 sigma_xx + beta0 and the constant term beta0 is then labeled the intrinsic contribution, but Section IV explicitly states that both the intrinsic and side-jump mechanisms give gamma=0 in Eq. (1). A constant sigma_AHE* in the 14-nm device is therefore equally consistent with a dominant side-jump contribution, and the paper provides no experimental or theoretical evidence to exclude it. The abstract and conclusion claim that the mechanism changes 'from extrinsic scattering to intrinsic contribution'; the data actually demonstrate a crossover from a skew-scattering-dominated to a constant non-skew term. Please either reframe the claim as extrinsic-to-non-skew, or provide independent evidence (e.g., scaling with magnetization, band-structure calculation, or comparison with side-jump estimates) that identifies the constant term as intrinsic.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (2), Fig. S5] The normalization sigma_AHE* = sigma_AHE * M(2K)/M(T) uses M(T) = C T^2 measured on a bulk single crystal (Fig. S5) and assumes this functional form and coefficient C apply to all flake thicknesses, but M(T) of the thin flakes is not measured; only the Curie temperature is shown to be similar (Fig. S6). If C or the functional form varies with thickness, the extracted alpha0 and beta0 values for the flakes would be systematically biased, which directly affects the conclusion that the 14-nm device is dominated by a constant term. The authors should measure M(T) on at least one thin flake or justify the transferability of the bulk magnetization, and in any case should state this assumption explicitly as a limitation.
  3. [Fig. 4 and Fig. 6] The data points in Fig. 4 are shown without error bars, and the crossover conductivity sigma_xx about 8 x 10^3 ohm^-1 cm^-1 in Fig. 6 is estimated visually rather than determined from a defined criterion. Please include error estimates for sigma_AHE* and sigma_xx (propagated from the measured resistances and device dimensions) and define the crossover criterion quantitatively, for example as the intersection of the fitted skew-scattering line and the flat constant term.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] The Introduction contains a typo: 'quais-2D' should be 'quasi-2D'.
  2. [Reference [25]] Reference [25] uses 'charicterization' and 'anamalous'; these should be corrected to 'characterization' and 'anomalous'.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption uses 'shadowed area'; 'shaded area' is the more standard wording.
  4. [Fig. 4 and Fig. S4] Please specify the temperature range used for the fits in Fig. 4 and justify the approximations sigma_xx approximately 1/rho_xx and sigma_xy approximately rho_xy/rho_xx^2 with the actual rho_xx/rho_xy ratios, because the validity of these approximations affects the fitted parameters.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'intrinsic contribution' dominating the 14-nm flake is, by construction, the fitted intercept beta0 of Eq. (3); side-jump also gives the same constant scaling, so the mechanism label is imposed rather than derived.

  1. self definitional [Section IV, Eqs. (1)-(3), Fig. 4(a)]
    "For skew scattering, σAHE is proportional to σxx (γ = 1), while for intrinsic and side jump mechanisms, σAHE exhibits a constant value as σxx varies (γ = 0). ... σAHE = α(M)σxx + β(M) ... σAHE∗ = α0σxx + β0 ... The intrinsic contribution parameters β0 for Fe0.29TaS2 bulk single crystal and 14nm flake are obtained to be (119.7 ± 13.8) and (43.2 ± 2.5) Ω−1 cm−1 ... For the 14-nm Fe0.29TaS2 device, σAHE∗ exhibit little variation ... which is consistent with intrinsic AHE mechanism arising from the Berry curvature."

    Eq. (1) explicitly states that side-jump and intrinsic mechanisms both produce the same constant scaling (γ = 0). Eq. (2) builds the model from only skew scattering and an 'intrinsic' term, and Eq. (3) fits that model to the data, with the intercept β0 defined as the 'intrinsic contribution parameter'. For the 14-nm flake, the near-constant σAHE∗ is therefore necessarily captured by the fitted constant β0. Labeling β0 as 'intrinsic' and then concluding that Berry-curvature intrinsic contribution dominates is not an inference from the data; it is the model's own labeling of the only non-skew parameter. Any side-jump contribution would be absorbed into the same β0, so the empirical scaling cannot distinguish the claimed mechanism.

full rationale

The paper's main scaling analysis is model-based rather than circular in the sense of fitting a quantity and then reporting it as a fresh prediction: α0 and β0 are honestly fitted parameters, and the data do show a genuine skew-scattering-like linear term in bulk and a constant term in thin flakes. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain and no imported uniqueness theorem; the cited scaling framework comes from standard AHE literature. The magnetization normalization by bulk M(T) = C T^2 for all flake thicknesses is an unverified assumption, but it is not circular. However, the headline conclusion that the 14-nm flake's AHE is dominated by the intrinsic Berry-curvature contribution reduces to the fitted intercept β0 of Eq. (3): since side-jump also gives γ = 0, the same constant term could equally be side-jump. The paper's own Eq. (1) admits this degeneracy, yet Eq. (2) omits side jump and later calls β0 the 'intrinsic contribution parameter'. This makes the mechanism attribution circular by definition, although the skew-scattering-to-constant crossover itself is data-driven. Score 6 reflects this partial circularity: the central 'intrinsic' claim is constructed by the labeling of the constant fit parameter, while the underlying conductivity-scaling trend remains an independent observation.

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

The central claim rests on the standard AHE scaling model, an unverified transfer of bulk magnetization behavior to thin flakes, and the neglect of side-jump. The only explicit free parameter is the magnetization constant C, which is fitted but not reported numerically. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • C in M(T) = C T^2 = not reported numerically (slope of linear fit in Fig. S5)
    The magnetization normalization of sigma_AHE* uses M(T) = C T^2 fitted to bulk magnetization data in Fig. S5. C is a fitted constant, and its thickness dependence is not measured or reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The scaling law sigma_AHE = alpha(M) sigma_xx + beta(M) with beta (intrinsic contribution) independent of sigma_xx holds in Fe0.29TaS2.
    Adopted from the standard AHE framework (Nagaosa et al., Onoda et al.); the paper does not derive this for Fe0.29TaS2 and it is the basis for interpreting the fitted slope and intercept.
  • domain assumption The magnetization M(T) is the same function of temperature for all flake thicknesses, specifically M(T) = C T^2 as measured on bulk.
    Fig. S5 only shows bulk magnetization; the paper assumes the normalization M(2K)/M(T) is valid for all devices despite not measuring M(T) on thin flakes.
  • domain assumption Side-jump contribution to AHE is negligible in this material.
    The analysis only considers skew scattering and intrinsic contributions; side-jump also yields a constant contribution but is not included in the model of Eq. (2).
  • domain assumption Hall resistivity is much smaller than channel resistivity so that sigma_xx ~ 1/rho_xx and sigma_xy ~ rho_xy/rho_xx^2.
    Stated in Fig. S4 and used in the data analysis; reasonable given the measured values but not rigorously justified over the full temperature range.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anomalous Hall effect mechanisms in quasi-2D van der Waals ferromagnet Fe0.29TaS2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QAYF27BZ

@misc{pith2026190809280,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anomalous Hall effect mechanisms in quasi-2D van der Waals ferromagnet Fe0.29TaS2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QAYF27BZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09280}
}
read the original abstract

The recent emergence of two-dimensional (2D) van der Waals ferromagnets has provided a new platform for exploring magnetism in the flatland and for designing 2D ferromagnet-based spintronics devices. Despite intensive studies, the anomalous Hall effect (AHE) mechanisms in 2D van der Waals ferromagnets have not been investigated yet. In this paper, we report the AHE mechanisms in quasi-2D van der Waals ferromagnet Fe0.29TaS2 via systematically measuring Fe0.29TaS2 devices with thickness from 14 nm to bulk single crystal. The AHE mechanisms are investigated via the scaling relationship between the anomalous Hall and channel conductivities. As the Fe0.29TaS2 thickness decreases, the major AHE mechanism changes from extrinsic scattering to intrinsic contribution. The crossover of the AHE mechanisms is found to be highly associated with the channel conductivities as the Fe0.29TaS2 thickness varies.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. Gong, L. Li, Z. Li, H. Ji, A. Stern, Y. Xia, T. Cao, W. Bao, C. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Q. Qiu, R. J. Cava, S. G. Louie, J. Xia, and X. Zhang, Discovery of intrinsic ferromagnetism in two- dimensional van der Waals crystals. Nature 546, 265 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Huang, G

    B. Huang, G. Clark, E. Navarro-Moratalla, D. R. Klein, R. Cheng, K. L. Seyler, D. Zhong, E. Schmidgall, M. A. McGuire, D. H. Cobden, W. Yao, D. Xiao, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and X. Xu, Layer-dependent Ferromagnetism in a van der Waals Crystal down to the Monolayer Limit. Nature 546, 270 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    W. Xing, Y. Chen, P. M. Odenthal, X. Zhang, W. Yuan, T. Su, Q. ong, T. Wang, J. Zhong, S. Jia, X. C. Xie, Y. Li, and W. Han, Electric field effect in multilayer Cr2Ge2Te6: a ferromagnetic 2D material. 2D Materials 4, 024009 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Samarth, Condensed-matter physics: Magnetism in flatland

    N. Samarth, Condensed-matter physics: Magnetism in flatland. Nature 546, 216 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    S. Liu, X. Yuan, Y. Zou, Y. Sheng, C. Huang, E. Zhang, J. Ling, Y. Liu, W. Wang, C. Zhang, J. Zou, K. Wang, and F. Xiu, Wafer-scale two-dimensional ferromagnetic Fe3GeTe2 thin films grown by molecular beam epitaxy. npj 2D Materials and Applications 1, 30 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Bonilla, S

    M. Bonilla, S. Kolekar, Y. Ma, H. C. Diaz, V. Kalappattil, R. Das, T. Eggers, H. R. Gutierrez, M.-H. Phan, and M. Batzill, Strong room-temperature ferromagnetism in VSe2 monolayers on van der Waals substrates. Nat. Nanotech. 13, 289 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    D. J. O'Hara, T. Zhu, A. H. Trout, A. S. Ahmed, Y. (Kelly)Luo, C. H. Lee, M. R. Brenner, S. Rajan, J. A. Gupta, D. W. McComb, and R. K. Kawakami, Room Temperature Intrinsic Ferromagnetism in Epitaxial Manganese Selenide Films in the Monolayer Limit. Nano Lett, 18, 3125 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    K. S. Burch, D. Mandrus, and J.-G. Park, Magnetism in two-dimensional van der Waals materials. Nature 563, 47 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Gong and X

    C. Gong and X. Zhang, Two-dimensional magnetic crystals and emergent heterostructure devices. Science 363, eaav4450 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    D. R. Klein, D. MacNeill, J. L. Lado, D. Soriano, E. Navarro-Moratalla, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Manni, P. Canfield, J. Ferná ndez-Rossier, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Probing magnetism in 2D van der Waals crystalline insulators via electron tunneling. Science 360, 1218 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Z. Wang, I. Gutié rrez-Lezama, N. Ubrig, M. Kroner, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, A. Imamoğlu, E. Giannini, and A. F. Morpurgo, Very Large Tunneling Magnetoresistance in Layered Magnetic Semiconductor CrI3. Nat. Commun. 9, 2516 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Jiang, J

    S. Jiang, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Electric-field switching of two-dimensional van der Waals magnets. Nat. Mater. 17, 406 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    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, W. Yao, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and X. Xu, Electrical Control of 2D Magnetism in Bilayer CrI3. Nat. Nanotech. 13, 544 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Y. Deng, Y. Yu, Y. Song, J. Zhang, N. Z. Wang, Y. Z. Wu, J. Zhu, J. Wang, X. H. Chen, and Y. Zhang, Gate-tunable Room-temperature Ferromagnetism in Two-dimensional Fe3GeTe2. Nature 563, 94 (2018). 12

    2018

  7. [15]

    Zhong, K

    D. Zhong, K. L. Seyler, X. Linpeng, R. Cheng, N. Sivadas, B. Huang, E. Schmidgall, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. A. McGuire, W. Yao, D. Xiao, K.-M. C. Fu, and X. Xu, Van der Waals engineering of ferromagnetic semiconductor heterostructures for spin and valleytronics. Science A...

    2017

  8. [16]

    M. Arai, R. Moriya, N. Yabuki, S. Masubuchi, K. Ueno, and T. Machida, Construction of van der Waals magnetic tunnel junction using ferromagnetic layered dichalcogenide. Appl. Phys. Lett. 107, 103107 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    W. 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

  10. [18]

    Nagaosa, J

    N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. MacDonald, and N. P. Ong, Anomalous Hall effect. Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1539 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Parkin and S.-H

    S. Parkin and S.-H. Yang, Memory on the racetrack. Nat. Nanotech. 10, 195 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    S. S. P. Parkin, M. Hyayshi, and L. Thomas, Magnetic Domain-Wall Racetrack Memory. Science 320, 190 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    Morosan, H

    E. Morosan, H. W. Zandbergen, L. Li, M. Lee, J. G. Checkelsky, M. Heinrich, T. Siegrist, N. P. Ong, and R. J. Cava, Sharp switching of the magnetization in Fe1∕4TaS2. Phys. Rev. B 75, 104401 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    J. G. Checkelsky, M. Lee, E. Morosan, R. J. Cava, and N. P. Ong, Anomalous Hall effect and magnetoresistance in the layered ferromagnet FexTaS2: The inelastic regime. Phys. Rev. B 77, 014433 (2008)

    2008

  15. [23]

    C.-W. Chen, S. Chikara, V. S. Zapf, and E. Morosan, Correlations of crystallographic defects and anisotropy with magnetotransport properties in FexTaS2 single crystals (0.23 ≤ x ≤ 0.35). Phys. Rev. B 94, 054406 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    K. T. Ko, K. Kim, S. B. Kim, H. D. Kim, J. Y. Kim, B. I. Min, J. H. Park, F. H. Chang, H. J. Lin, A. Tanaka, and S. W. Cheong, RKKY Ferromagnetism with Ising-Like Spin States in Intercalated Fe1/4TaS2. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 247201 (2011)

    2011

  17. [25]

    See Supplemental Materials at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for the energy- dispersive spectroscopy characterization of the single crystal Fe0.29TaS2, Raman charicterization and atomic force microscopy measurement of Fe0.29TaS2 flakes, the temperature dependence of magne...

  18. [26]

    K. S. Novoselov, D. Jiang, F. Schedin, T. J. Booth, V. V. Khotkevich, S. V. Morozov, and A. K. Geim, Two-dimensional atomic crystals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 10451 (2005)

    2005

  19. [27]

    Kaplan and G

    B. Kaplan and G. A. Gehring, The domain structure in ultrathin magnetic films. J. Magn. Magn. Mat. 128, 111 (1993)

    1993

  20. [28]

    C. Tan, J. Lee, S.-G. Jung, T. Park, S. Albarakati, J. Partridge, M. R. Field, D. G. McCulloch, L. Wang, and C. Lee, Hard magnetic properties in nanoflake van der Waals Fe3GeTe2. Nat. Commun. 9, 1554 (2018). 13

    2018

  21. [29]

    Clavero, J

    C. Clavero, J. M. Garcí a-Martí n, J. L. Costa Krä mer, G. Armelles, A. Cebollada, Y. Huttel, R. A. Lukaszew, and A. J. Kellock, Temperature and thickness dependence at the onset of perpendicular magnetic anisotropy in FePdthin films sputtered on MgO (001). Phys. Rev. B 73, 17...

    2006

  22. [30]

    Thiele, L

    J.-U. Thiele, L. Folks, M. F. Toney, and D. K. Weller, Perpendicular magnetic anisotropy and magnetic domain structure in sputtered epitaxial FePt (001) L10 films. J. Appl. Phys. 84, 5686 (1998)

    1998

  23. [31]

    Gubbiotti, L

    G. Gubbiotti, L. Albini, S. Tacchi, G. Carlotti, R. Gunnella, and M. De Crescenzi, Structural and magnetic properties of epitaxial Cu/Fe/Cu/Si(111) ultrathin films. Phys. Rev. B 60, 17150 (1999)

    1999

  24. [32]

    J. Kim, J. Sinha, M. Hayashi, M. Yamanouchi, S. Fukami, T. Suzuki, S. Mitani, and H. Ohno, Layer thickness dependence of the current-induced effective field vector in Ta|CoFeB|MgO. Nat. Mater. 12, 240 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    Speckmann, H

    M. Speckmann, H. P. Oepen, and H. Ibach, Magnetic Domain Structures in Ultrathin Co/Au(111): On the Influence of Film Morphology. Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2035 (1995)

    1995

  26. [34]

    Horibe, J

    Y. Horibe, J. Yang, Y.-H. Cho, X. Luo, S. B. Kim, Y. S. Oh, F.-T. Huang, T. Asada, M. Tanimura, D. Jeong, and S.-W. Cheong, Color Theorems, Chiral Domain Topology, and Magnetic Properties of FexTaS2. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136, 8368 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    A. K. Geim and I. V. Grigorieva, Van der Waals heterostructures. Nature 499, 419 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    S. S. P. Parkin, Systematic variation of the strength and oscillation period of indirect magnetic exchange coupling through the 3d, 4d, and 5d transition metals. Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 3598 (1991)

    1991

  29. [37]

    S. S. P. Parkin, C. Kaiser, A. Panchula, P. M. Rice, B. Hughes, M. Samant, and S.-H. Yang, Giant tunnelling magnetoresistance at room temperature with MgO (100) tunnel barriers. Nat. Mater. 3, 862 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    Yuasa, T

    S. Yuasa, T. Nagahama, A. Fukushima, Y. Suzuki, and K. Ando, Giant room-temperature magnetoresistance in single-crystal Fe/MgO/Fe magnetic tunnel junctions. Nat. Mater. 3, 868 (2004)

    2004

  31. [39]

    Onoda, N

    S. Onoda, N. Sugimoto, and N. Nagaosa, Quantum transport theory of anomalous electric, thermoelectric, and thermal Hall effects in ferromagnets. Phys. Rev. B 77, 165103 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    Smit, The spontaneous hall effect in ferromagnetics I

    J. Smit, The spontaneous hall effect in ferromagnetics I. Physica 21, 877 (1955)

    1955

  33. [41]

    Smit, The spontaneous hall effect in ferromagnetics II

    J. Smit, The spontaneous hall effect in ferromagnetics II. Physica 24, 39 (1958)

    1958

  34. [42]

    Berger, Side-Jump Mechanism for the Hall Effect of Ferromagnets

    L. Berger, Side-Jump Mechanism for the Hall Effect of Ferromagnets. Physical Review B 2, 4559 (1970)

    1970

  35. [43]

    Karplus and J

    R. Karplus and J. M. Luttinger, Hall Effect in Ferromagnetics. Phys. Rev. 95, 1154 (1954)

    1954

  36. [44]

    Jungwirth, Q

    T. Jungwirth, Q. Niu, and A. H. MacDonald, Anomalous Hall Effect in Ferromagnetic Semiconductors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 207208 (2002)

    2002

  37. [45]

    Onoda and N

    M. Onoda and N. Nagaosa, Topological Nature of Anomalous Hall Effect in Ferromagnets. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 71, 19 (2002). 14

    2002

  38. [46]

    Noziè res and C

    P. Noziè res and C. J. J. P. F. Lewiner, A simple theory of the anomalous hall effect in semiconductors. J. Phys. France 34, 901 (1973)

    1973

  39. [47]

    C. Zeng, Y. Yao, Q. Niu, and H. H. Weitering, Linear Magnetization Dependence of the Intrinsic Anomalous Hall Effect. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 037204 (2006)

    2006

  40. [48]

    M. Kim, P. Kumaravadivel, J. Birkbeck, W. Kuang, S. G. Xu, D. G. Hopkinson, J. Knolle, P. A. McClarty, A. I. Berdyugin, M. B. Shalom, R. V. Gorbachev, S. J. Haigh, S. Liu, J. H. Edgar, K. S. Novoselov, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. K. Geim, Hall micromagnetometry of individual two-...

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    D. Hou, G. Su, Y. Tian, X. Jin, S. A. Yang, and Q. Niu, Multivariable Scaling for the Anomalous Hall Effect. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 217203 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    E. Liu, Y. Sun, N. Kumar, L. Muechler, A. Sun, L. Jiao, S.-Y. Yang, D. Liu, A. Liang, Q. Xu, J. Kroder, V. Sü ß , H. Borrmann, C. Shekhar, Z. Wang, C. Xi, W. Wang, W. Schnelle, S. Wirth, Y. Chen, S. T. B. Goennenwein, and C. Felser, Giant anomalous Hall effect in a ferromagnet...

    2018

  43. [51]

    K. Kim, J. Seo, E. Lee, K. T. Ko, B. S. Kim, B. G. Jang, J. M. Ok, J. Lee, Y. J. Jo, W. Kang, J. H. Shim, C. Kim, H. W. Yeom, B. Il Min, B.-J. Yang, and J. S. Kim, Large anomalous Hall current induced by topological nodal lines in a ferromagnetic van der Waals semimetal. Nat. ...

    2018

  44. [52]

    Yoshimi, K

    R. Yoshimi, K. Yasuda, A. Tsukazaki, K. S. Takahashi, M. Kawasaki, and Y. Tokura, Current-driven magnetization switching in ferromagnetic bulk Rashba semiconductor (Ge,Mn)Te. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat9989 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    L. J. Zhu, D. Pan, and J. H. Zhao, Anomalous Hall effect in epitaxial L10 Mn1.5Ga films with variable chemical ordering. Phys. Rev. B 89, 220406 (2014). 15 Figure 1 Fig. 1. Crystal structure and Hall measurements of quasi-2D van der Waals ferromagnet Fe0.29TaS2. (a) Crystal st...

    2014

Pith tools

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