Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Electron-Magnon Coupling Mediated Magnetotransport in Antiferromagnetic van der Waals Heterostructure

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Graphene–FePS3 negative magnetoresistance comes from magnon coupling

desk verdict A real-looking negative MR in FLG/FePS3, but the magnon mechanism is underdetermined because no measurement rules out field-induced carrier-density changes in the graphene channel. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08597 v1 pith:2CPOML6L submitted 2024-11-13 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Sujan Maity , Soumik Das , Mainak Palit , Koushik Dey , Bikash Das , Tanima Kundu , Rahul Paramanik , Binoy Krishna De
show 2 more authors
Hemant Singh Kunwar Subhadeep Datta
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords electron-magnoncouplingmagnetoresistanceantiferromagneticFePS3few-layergraphenevanderWaalsheterostructuremagnon-to-chargeconversionmagnetocapacitanceRamanspectroscopy
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 tries to establish that a simple stacked device – few-layer graphene on the antiferromagnet FePS3 – converts magnons (quantized spin waves) in the FePS3 into an extra electric current in the graphene, and that this magnon-to-charge conversion shows up as negative magnetoresistance at low magnetic fields, persisting up to about 100 K. The authors argue this is an interfacial effect: surface electrons in the graphene couple asymmetrically to the two magnetic sublattices of FePS3, and a magnetic field stiffens the magnons so that they transfer momentum to the electrons more coherently. If true, it would give a purely electrical, contact-based probe of antiferromagnetic magnons, which are otherwise hard to detect because antiferromagnets have no net magnetization. Thickness-dependent measurements support the claim: thinning the FePS3 suppresses the negative magnetoresistance because the reduced magnetic moment weakens the coupling, and the magnetocapacitance upturn near 90 K points to a magnon-phonon contribution to interfacial polarization.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a phenomenological model of electron-magnon coupling at an uncompensated metal/antiferromagnet interface. The exchange Hamiltonian, $H_{\mathrm{em}} = -J_{\mathrm{em}}\sqrt{S/2N}\sum_{\mathbf{k}\mathbf{q}} \Gamma_{\mathbf{q}} c^\dagger_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q},\downarrow}c_{\mathbf{k},\uparrow} + \mathrm{H.c.}$, transfers angular momentum between graphene electrons and the two magnon sublattices, and a linearized Boltzmann treatment yields a magnon-induced current $j_{\mathrm{em}}\propto J_{\mathrm{em}}^2$. The paper also uses the relation $\Delta\rho \propto B\ln B / D(T)^2$ (with $D$ the magnon stiffness) to fit the magnetoresistance and extract an effective stiffness $D'$ that decreases with cooling, linking the transport signature to the magnon softening seen in Raman spectroscopy. The key physical mechanism is that an applied field opens a magnon gap and increases magnon stiffness and coherence, improving momentum transfer from magnons to conduction electrons and thereby lowering resistance.

What would settle it

Measure the carrier density (via Hall effect) in the same FLG/FePS3 device while sweeping the field through ±0.2 T at 10 K: if the negative magnetoresistance vanishes once resistance is divided by the field-dependent carrier density, the effect is a carrier-density artifact, not a magnon-driven mobility enhancement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the negative magnetoresistance observed in few-layer graphene when it sits on a thick FePS3 flake, at fields between -0.2 T and +0.2 T and temperatures up to 100 K, is a transport fingerprint of electron-magnon coupling at the interface. The paper supports this by showing that the magnon mode of FePS3 softens below 40 K and that the effective magnon stiffness extracted from the magnetoresistance data decreases on cooling, opposite to the pristine material; that the negative MR disappears above 100 K where phonon-dominated transport takes over; and that reducing FePS3 thickness from ~95 nm to ~30 nm suppresses the negative MR, consistent with weaker electron-magnon coupling. The authors rule out defects as the cause by noting the absence of a Raman D peak, and rule out weak localization by the persistence of negative MR up to 100 K. They further report a negative magnetocapacitance upturn below ~90 K in a FLG/FePS3/FLG capacitor, which they connect to magnon-phonon hybridization and interfacial electric displacement.

Load-bearing premise

The negative magnetoresistance is assumed to reflect a mobility boost from electron–magnon coupling, rather than a magnetic-field-induced change in the number of mobile carriers in the graphene (for example through the magnetocapacitance effect the authors themselves observe).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • FLG on FePS3 becomes an electrical detector of antiferromagnetic magnons up to 100 K, a temperature range where defect- or localization-based negative MR in graphene is not expected.
  • The FePS3 thickness is a tuning knob: thicker flakes give stronger electron–magnon coupling and larger negative MR, thinner flakes suppress it.
  • The negative-to-positive MR crossover near 100 K marks the boundary between magnon-assisted and phonon-dominated transport in the graphene channel.
  • The negative magnetocapacitance upturn near 90 K indicates that magnon–phonon coupling can alter the interfacial electric displacement, so capacitance measurements can track magnonic excitations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would be to gate the few-layer graphene and check whether the negative MR amplitude tracks the density of states at the Fermi level; if it does, that would confirm the spin-flip scattering picture rather than a purely orbital magnetoresistance effect.
  • The same uncompensated-interface geometry could be replicated with other Dirac or semimetallic channels (for example monolayer graphene or thin topological-insulator films) to see whether the magnon-to-charge conversion efficiency scales with carrier mobility or spin coherence length.
  • If the magnon-stiffness interpretation is right, the temperature dependence of the extracted $D'(T)$ could be compared directly with inelastic neutron scattering on the same FePS3 batch, providing a quantitative check of the transport-based magnon probe.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports temperature-dependent Raman and magnetotransport measurements on few-layer graphene (FLG) on antiferromagnetic FePS3, together with magnetocapacitance measurements on a FLG/FePS3/FLG sandwich. The central claims are that the magnon mode of FePS3 is softened in the heterostructure, that the effective magnon stiffness D' extracted from the magnetoresistance (MR) data decreases with cooling, and that a low-field negative MR in the FLG channel up to about 100 K arises from electron-magnon coupling at the interface (magnon-to-charge conversion). The negative MR is reported to be absent in FLG regions not in contact with FePS3 and suppressed when the FePS3 thickness is reduced. The paper also reports a negative magnetocapacitance below about 90 K, which is attributed to magnon-phonon coupling and interfacial polarization.

Significance. If substantiated, the result would provide a transport-based probe of antiferromagnetic magnons in van der Waals heterostructures and could motivate magnon-to-charge-conversion devices. The paper has several compensating strengths: the negative MR is spatially correlated with the FePS3 overlap region, the thickness dependence of the effect is shown, and the Raman data display spin-phonon anomalies and a magnon mode whose temperature dependence is tracked. The manuscript also presents a microscopic electron-magnon coupling Hamiltonian and a Boltzmann-transport sketch that makes a concrete J_em^2 dependence. However, the central causal claim is currently supported mainly by correlations: there is no direct measurement of carrier density versus magnetic field, no non-magnetic control, no error bars or device statistics, and the extracted D'(T) is a fitting output of the same MR data it is invoked to explain. These gaps are load-bearing for the proposed mobility-enhancement mechanism.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III (formula Δρ ∝ B lnB / D(T)^2) and Fig. 4] The effective magnon stiffness D'(T) shown in Fig. 4 is extracted by fitting the very low-field MR data whose negative slope is the observation to be explained. Because D'(T) is a free parameter of the B lnB fit, the statement that 'magnon stiffness decreases with cooling' is not an independent experimental result; it is a restatement of the fit. To break the circularity, the authors need either an independent determination of D(T) (for example from the measured magnon Raman shift or from literature INS values on FePS3) or a direct comparison of the fitted D'(T) to such data, with quantified uncertainties on the fit parameters.
  2. [§III, Fig. 5 (magnetocapacitance) and absence of Hall measurement] The paper does not rule out a magnetic-field-induced change in carrier density n(B) as the origin of the low-field negative MR. The only field-dependent electrical quantity measured on a similar stack is the magnetocapacitance of FLG/FePS3/FLG, which shows a significant drop of about 15 fF at 20 K under ±1 T and is attributed by the authors to interfacial magnetoelectric response. If a comparable field-dependent charge transfer or polarization change occurs at the planar HS-1 interface, then [R(B)−R(0)]/R(0) could be dominated by n(B) rather than by mobility enhancement. A Hall measurement or gate-dependent MR on the same transport device is required to establish that the resistance change reflects mobility, and this is the central load-bearing point for the electron-magnon mechanism.
  3. [Abstract vs. §III and Fig. 4] The temperature scale of the magnon softening is stated inconsistently. The abstract says the magnon mode 'softens below 40 K'; the main text says 'the magnon mode softens below 70 K' (near Fig. 4 and Supplementary Fig. SVII); and other passages describe softening or a blueshift with increasing temperature between 5 K and 120 K. The temperature dependence of the magnon and of D' is the backbone of the claimed mechanism, so the raw Raman frequencies at each temperature and a single explicit definition of the anomaly temperature must be provided.
  4. [§III, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 (controls and error bars)] The magnetotransport data are presented for one device of each stack (HS-1, HS-2) without error bars, repeated measurement statistics, or instrument resolution. Fig. 3 shows no uncertainty estimates on the MR curves, and Fig. 4 reports D' without confidence intervals. Additionally, there is no non-magnetic control sample: the FLG-only regions within the same device establish spatial correlation with FePS3 but cannot separate antiferromagnetic magnon scattering from magnetostrictive, electrostatic, or trapped-charge interface effects. Adding a control stack with a non-magnetic isostructural or band-insulating van der Waals layer, or at least a clear measurement of number of devices and error bars, is necessary to support the specificity of the effect to magnons.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected, including 'correleted' (main text near the G-band linewidth discussion), 'resiatance' and 'mesaured' (Fig. SIV caption), and 'enrgy' (Supplementary Information).
  2. [Fig. 2 inset caption] The inset is labeled 'three zero-energy phonon (ZP) modes' but the modes have finite energy; this should be 'zone-folded phonon modes' to match the terminology used in the main text.
  3. [Fig. 3 and its insets] The field geometry is not fully defined in the text: B⊥ and B∥ are only introduced in the Fig. 3 caption, and the notation 'B⊥ I' in inset (a) is ambiguous. The authors should state explicitly the field and current directions for every MR trace.
  4. [Fig. 3 inset (d)] The claim that the 'area under the curve in the negative MR region' decreases with temperature requires a definition of the integration range and how the zero baseline is subtracted; otherwise the reader cannot reproduce the trend.
  5. [§III, high-field linear MR] The high-field linear MR is cited to Ref. [29] (Morozov et al.), but the FLG-on-SiO2 behavior in that work is not directly compared with the slopes or intercepts reported here. A quantitative comparison, or a statement that only the functional form is being used, would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the 'effective magnon stiffness' trend is a fit output, while the central negative-MR observation itself remains independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III (Results and Discussions), Fig. 4 discussion; echoed in Abstract and Conclusion]
    "We fit our MR data to this formula, and an effective magnon stiffness (D′) were plotted with temperature in Fig. 4, showing a consistent decline under cooling."

    D′ is obtained by fitting the very magnetoresistance data that the electron-magnon mechanism is invoked to explain. The formula Δρ ∝ B lnB / D(T)^2 allows any temperature-dependent MR amplitude to be absorbed into D(T), so the claimed 'decline under cooling' is a property of the fitted parameter, not an independent measurement. The abstract and conclusion then present this fit output as a finding ('effective magnon stiffness decreases with cooling') that supports the magnon-coupling interpretation. The negative MR observation itself is not circular, but this load-bearing supporting quantity is constructed from the same dataset it is used to explain.

full rationale

The low-field negative MR in HS-1 (Fig. 3) is an independent observation: it appears only for the FLG-over-FePS3 region, persists to 100 K, and is suppressed in the thinner HS-2 device. Those facts do not reduce to the fitted model. The circular element is narrower: the paper's claim that 'effective magnon stiffness decreases with cooling' is extracted by fitting the MR curves to Δρ ∝ B lnB / D(T)^2, and is then reported as a supporting result in the abstract and conclusion. That D′(T) is therefore not a separate measurement; it is a fit parameter renamed as an empirical trend. The Raman magnon-mode softening below 70 K is an independent datum, but it is a frequency shift rather than a direct measurement of D′, so the quantitative D′(T) claim remains fit-derived. Self-citations [11,30,31,52] provide standard FePS3 Raman and magnetic behavior and prior heterostructure comparisons; they are not uniqueness arguments and do not carry the central claim. The absence of a Hall measurement to rule out field-induced carrier-density changes is a genuine correctness risk, but it is an alternative-explanation concern rather than a circularity, so it does not raise the score beyond partial.

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

The central claim rests on interpreting the negative MR as electron-magnon coupling, but the magnon parameters are extracted from the same transport data, and the interface condition is assumed rather than shown.

free parameters (3)
  • Effective magnon stiffness D'(T) = Extracted per temperature, not numerically reported
    Obtained by fitting the MR field dependence to Δρ ∝ B lnB / D^2 from ref [51]; no independent measurement (e.g., neutron scattering) is provided, so this is a fitted parameter that is then used to claim magnon softening.
  • Spin-phonon coupling constant λ_sp = 0.16, 0.12, 0.15 (pristine); 0.69, 0.57, 0.50 (HS-1)
    Calculated from Raman peak deviations using Δω = -λ_sp S^2 φ(T); the values are fits to the temperature-dependent phonon shift.
  • Order-parameter exponent γ
    Appears in φ(T)=1-(T/T_N)^γ; used to fit the Raman deviations, but the specific fitted value is not reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The electron-magnon coupling Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) taken from refs [54,55] is applicable to the FLG/FePS3 interface and produces an additional current j_em ∝ J_em^2.
    The paper quotes the Hamiltonian and Boltzmann-equation result from the literature without deriving it for the FLG/FePS3 band structure and without validating the interface coupling parameters.
  • domain assumption The Raman-visible magnon mode (~120 cm^-1) is the same magnon population that couples to electrons and causes the negative MR.
    Raman probes zone-center magnons at the Γ point, while transport coupling could involve a range of q; the paper uses the Raman softening as evidence of reduced magnon stiffness relevant to transport.
  • domain assumption The interface is uncompensated, allowing a net magnon-to-charge conversion, as assumed in the introduction.
    The paper states that an uncompensated interface increases EMC but does not experimentally determine the interface termination or sublattice coupling asymmetry.
  • ad hoc to paper The negative MR is not caused by magnetic-field-induced changes to the graphene carrier density (e.g., via magnetocapacitance).
    The authors measure magnetocapacitance but do not use it to correct the transport data; if the field changes the capacitance and hence the carrier density, a conventional MR could arise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electron-Magnon Coupling Mediated Magnetotransport in Antiferromagnetic van der Waals Heterostructure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2CPOML6L

@misc{pith2026241108597,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electron-Magnon Coupling Mediated Magnetotransport in Antiferromagnetic van der Waals Heterostructure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2CPOML6L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08597}
}
abstract

Electron-magnon coupling reveals key insights into the interfacial properties between non-magnetic metals and magnetic insulators, influencing charge transport and spin dynamics. Here, we present temperature-dependent Raman spectroscopy and magneto-transport measurements of few-layer graphene (FLG)/antiferromagnetic FePS\(_3\) heterostructures. The magnon mode in FePS\(_3\) softens below 40 K, and effective magnon stiffness decreases with cooling. Magnetotransport measurements show that FLG exhibits negative magnetoresistance (MR) in the heterostructure at low fields (\(\pm 0.2 \, \text{T}\)), persisting up to 100 K; beyond this, MR transitions to positive. Notably, as layer thickness decreases, the coupling strength at the interface reduces, leading to a suppression of negative MR. Additionally, magnetodielectric measurements in the FLG/FePS\(_3\)/FLG heterostructure show an upturn at temperatures significantly below ($T_\text{N}$), suggesting a role for the magnon mode in capacitance, as indicated by hybridization between magnon and phonon bands in pristine FePS\(_3\) \textit{via} magnetoelastic coupling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08597 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic representation of electron-drag mediated by magnons in the FLG-FePS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Raman spectroscopy of (a) FLG/FePS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Magnetoresistance (MR, in %) as a function of magnetic field ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Normalized magnon stiffness ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Temperature dependence of change in capacitance with applied magnetic field below T [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Žuti ´c, J

    I. Žuti ´c, J. Fabian, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 323 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    A. H. MacDonald, T. Jungwirth, and M. Kasner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 705 (1998)

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    Balashov, A

    T. Balashov, A. F. Takács, W. Wulfhekel, and J. Kirschner, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 187201 (2006)

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Balashov, A

    T. Balashov, A. F. Takács, M. Däne, A. Ernst, P. Bruno, and W. Wulfhekel, Phys. Rev. B 78, 174404 (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Schweflinghaus, M

    B. Schweflinghaus, M. dos Santos Dias, A. T. Costa, and S. Lounis, Phys. Rev. B 89, 235439 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Siegl, M

    L. Siegl, M. Lammel, A. Kamra, H. Huebl, W. Belzig, and S. T. B. Goennenwein, Phys. Rev. B 108, 144420 (2023). 10

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Piscanec, M

    S. Piscanec, M. Lazzeri, F. Mauri, A. C. Ferrari, and J. Robertson, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 185503 (2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Attaccalite, L

    C. Attaccalite, L. Wirtz, M. Lazzeri, F. Mauri, and A. Rubio, Nano letters 10, 1172 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    G. Li, H. Jin, Y . Wei, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. B106, 205303 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    G. T. S. H. I. K. A. T. Kimura, T. and Y . Tokura, Nature426, 55 (2003)

    2003

  3. [12]

    Rogado, J

    N. Rogado, J. Li, A. Sleight, and M. Subramanian, Advanced Materials 17, 2225 (2005), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/adma.200500737

    2005 doi

  4. [13]

    W. Xing, L. Qiu, X. Wang, Y . Yao, Y . Ma, R. Cai, S. Jia, X. C. Xie, and W. Han, Phys. Rev. X 9, 011026 (2019)

    2019

  5. [14]

    M. B. Jungfleisch, W. Zhang, and A. Hoffmann, Physics Letters A 382, 865 (2018)

    2018

  6. [15]

    G. R. Hoogeboom, A. Aqeel, T. Kuschel, T. T. M. Palstra, and B. J. van Wees, Applied Physics Letters 111, 052409 (2017), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4997588/13344400/052409_1_online.pdf

    2017 doi

  7. [16]

    Ramos, F

    M. Ramos, F. Carrascoso, R. Frisenda, P. Gant, S. Mañas-Valero, D. L. Esteras, J. J. Baldoví, E. Coro- nado, A. Castellanos-Gomez, and M. R. Calvo, npj 2D Materials and Applications 5, 19 (2021)

    2021

  8. [17]

    Brügger, C

    C. Brügger, C. P. Hofmann, F. Kämpfer, M. Moser, M. Pepe, and U.-J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. B75, 214405 (2007)

    2007

  9. [18]

    W. Han, R. K. Kawakami, M. Gmitra, and J. Fabian, Nature nanotechnology 9, 794 (2014)

    2014

  10. [19]

    Avsar, H

    A. Avsar, H. Ochoa, F. Guinea, B. Özyilmaz, B. J. van Wees, and I. J. Vera-Marun, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 021003 (2020)

    2020

  11. [20]

    Erlandsen, A

    E. Erlandsen, A. Kamra, A. Brataas, and A. Sudbø, Phys. Rev. B 100, 100503 (2019)

    2019

  12. [21]

    Mæland, H

    K. Mæland, H. I. Røst, J. W. Wells, and A. Sudbø, Phys. Rev. B 104, 125125 (2021)

    2021

  13. [22]

    Cornelissen, J

    L. Cornelissen, J. Liu, R. Duine, J. B. Youssef, and B. Van Wees, Nature Physics 11, 1022 (2015)

    2015

  14. [23]

    D. Hou, Z. Qiu, J. Barker, K. Sato, K. Yamamoto, S. Vélez, J. M. Gomez-Perez, L. E. Hueso, F. Casanova, and E. Saitoh, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 147202 (2017)

    2017

  15. [24]

    S. S.-L. Zhang and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 86, 214424 (2012)

    2012

  16. [25]

    L. Y . Liao, Z. Y . Zhou, Y . J. Zhou, W. X. Zhu, F. Pan, and C. Song, Phys. Rev. B102, 115152 (2020)

    2020

  17. [26]

    B. Yang, B. Bhujel, D. G. Chica, E. J. Telford, X. Roy, F. Ibrahim, M. Chshiev, M. Cosset-Chéneau, and B. J. v. Wees, Nature Communications15, 4459 (2024)

    2024

  18. [27]

    Ghazaryan, M

    D. Ghazaryan, M. T. Greenaway, Z. Wang, V . H. Guarochico-Moreira, I. J. Vera-Marun, J. Yin, Y . Liao, S. V . Morozov, O. Kristanovski, A. I. Lichtenstein,et al., Nature Electronics 1, 344 (2018). 11

    2018

  19. [28]

    D. Q. To, W. Wu, S. Bhatt, Y . Liu, A. Janotti, J. M. O. Zide, M. J. H. Ku, J. Q. Xiao, M. B. Jungfleisch, S. Law, and M. F. Doty, Phys. Rev. Mater.7, 045201 (2023)

    2023

  20. [29]

    S. V . Morozov, K. S. Novoselov, M. I. Katsnelson, F. Schedin, L. A. Ponomarenko, D. Jiang, and A. K. Geim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 016801 (2006)

    2006

  21. [30]

    Maity, D

    S. Maity, D. Dey, A. Ghosh, S. Masanta, B. K. De, H. S. Kunwar, B. Das, T. Kundu, M. Palit, S. Bera, et al., Advanced Functional Materials , 2402544 (2024)

    2024

  22. [31]

    Vaclavkova, M

    D. Vaclavkova, M. Palit, J. Wyzula, S. Ghosh, A. Delhomme, S. Maity, P. Kapuscinski, A. Ghosh, M. Veis, M. Grzeszczyk, C. Faugeras, M. Orlita, S. Datta, and M. Potemski, Phys. Rev. B104, 134437 (2021)

    2021

  23. [32]

    S.-J. Yang, S. Choi, F. O. Odongo Ngome, K.-J. Kim, S.-Y . Choi, and C.-J. Kim, Nano letters19, 3590 (2019)

    2019

  24. [33]

    J. E. Lee, G. Ahn, J. Shim, Y . S. Lee, and S. Ryu, Nature communications 3, 1024 (2012)

    2012

  25. [34]

    Zhang, K

    B. Zhang, K. Wang, R. Chang, X. Yi, Y . Zhang, and S. Wang, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 123, 24943 (2019)

    2019

  26. [37]

    Bonini, M

    N. Bonini, M. Lazzeri, N. Marzari, and F. Mauri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 176802 (2007)

    2007

  27. [40]

    Calder, J

    S. Calder, J. Lee, M. B. Stone, M. D. Lumsden, J. Lang, M. Feygenson, Z. Zhao, J.-Q. Yan, Y . Shi, Y . Sun,et al., Nature Communications 6, 8916 (2015)

    2015

  28. [41]

    X. Yi, Q. Chen, K. Wang, Y . Yu, Y . Yan, X. Jiang, C. Yan, and S. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 108, 125427 (2023)

    2023

  29. [42]

    I. S. Sokolov, D. V . Averyanov, O. E. Parfenov, A. N. Taldenkov, M. G. Rybin, A. M. Tokmachev, and V . G. Storchak, Small 19, 2301295 (2023), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/smll.202301295

    2023 doi

  30. [43]

    Suzuura and T

    H. Suzuura and T. Ando, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 266603 (2002)

    2002

  31. [44]

    D. V . Khveshchenko, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 036802 (2006). 12

    2006

  32. [45]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V . Morozov, D. Jiang, Y . Zhang, S. V . Dubonos, I. V . Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Science 306, 666 (2004), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1102896

    2004 doi

  33. [46]

    M. Rein, N. Richter, K. Parvez, X. Feng, H. Sachdev, M. Kläui, and K. Müllen, ACS Nano 9, 1360 (2015), pMID: 25548883, https://doi.org/10.1021/nn5057063

    2015 doi

  34. [47]

    Zhou, B.-H

    Y .-B. Zhou, B.-H. Han, Z.-M. Liao, H.-C. Wu, and D.-P. Yu, Applied Physics Letters 98, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3595681 (2011)

    2011 doi

  35. [48]

    H. Cao, Q. Yu, R. Colby, D. Pandey, C. Park, J. Lian, D. Zemlyanov, I. Childres, V . Drachev, E. A. Stach, et al., Journal of Applied Physics 107 (2010)

    2010

  36. [49]

    Majumder, S

    C. Majumder, S. Bhattacharya, and S. K. Saha, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 506, 166601 (2020)

    2020

  37. [50]

    Jenni, S

    K. Jenni, S. Kunkemöller, D. Brüning, T. Lorenz, Y . Sidis, A. Schneidewind, A. A. Nugroho, A. Rosch, D. I. Khomskii, and M. Braden, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 017202 (2019)

    2019

  38. [51]

    Raquet, M

    B. Raquet, M. Viret, E. Sondergard, O. Cespedes, and R. Mamy, Phys. Rev. B 66, 024433 (2002)

    2002

  39. [52]

    Ghosh, M

    A. Ghosh, M. Birowska, P. K. Ghose, M. Rybak, S. Maity, S. Ghosh, B. Das, K. Dey, S. Bera, S. Bhardwaj, S. Nandi, and S. Datta, Phys. Rev. B 108, L060403 (2023)

    2023

  40. [53]

    Cheng, J

    R. Cheng, J. Xiao, Q. Niu, and A. Brataas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 057601 (2014)

    2014

  41. [56]

    S. A. Bender, A. Kamra, W. Belzig, and R. A. Duine, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 187701 (2019)

    2019

  42. [57]

    M. M. S. Barbeau, M. Titov, M. I. Katsnelson, and A. Qaiumzadeh, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L022065 (2023)

    2023

  43. [58]

    C. J. Brennan, Integrated Ferroelectrics 2, 73 (1992)

    1992

  44. [59]

    A. G. Boni, C. Chirila, I. Pasuk, R. Negrea, L. Trupina, G. Le Rhun, B. Vilquin, I. Pintilie, and L. Pintilie, Thin Solid Films 593, 124 (2015)

    2015

  45. [60]

    G. Gong, D. Su, Y . Sun, L. Xu, J. He, and Z. Tian, Phys. Rev. B105, 054408 (2022)

    2022

  46. [61]

    Huang, H

    S. Huang, H. Jin, K. Wan, H. Wang, K. Su, D. Yang, L. Yang, and D. Huo, Journal of Applied Physics 131 (2022)

    2022

  47. [62]

    Lawes, T

    G. Lawes, T. Kimura, C. Varma, M. Subramanian, N. Rogado, R. Cava, and A. Ramirez, Progress in Solid State Chemistry 37, 40 (2009)

    2009

  48. [63]

    D.-Q. To, C. Y . Ameyaw, A. Suresh, S. Bhatt, M. J. H. Ku, M. B. Jungfleisch, J. Q. Xiao, J. M. O. Zide, B. K. Nikoli´c, and M. F. Doty, Phys. Rev. B108, 085435 (2023). 13

    2023

  49. [64]

    Semenov, J

    Y . Semenov, J. Zavada, and K. Kim, Applied Physics Letters 97, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3462297 (2010)

    2010 doi

  50. [65]

    Datta, Applied physics letters 87 (2005)

    S. Datta, Applied physics letters 87 (2005)

    2005

  51. [66]

    P. M. Gunnink, T. Ludwig, and R. A. Duine, Applied Physics Letters 124 (2024). FIG. 1. (a) Schematic representation of electron-drag mediated by magnons in the FLG-FePS3 heterostruc- ture in the presence of an out-of-plane magnetic field ( H). An electric field ( E) is applied...

    2024 arXiv

  52. [67]

    M. J. Coak, D. M. Jarvis, H. Hamidov, A. R. Wildes, J. A. M. Paddison, C. Liu, C. R. S. Haines, N. T. Dang, S. E. Kichanov, B. N. Savenko, S. Lee, M. Kratochvílová, S. Klotz, T. C. Hansen, D. P. Kozlenko, J.-G. Park, and S. S. Saxena, Phys. Rev. X11, 011024 (2021)

    2021

  53. [68]

    Y . Lee, S. Son, C. Kim, S. Kang, J. Shen, M. Kenzelmann, B. Delley, T. Savchenko, S. Parchenko, W. Na, et al., Advanced Electronic Materials 9, 2200650 (2023)

    2023

  54. [69]

    Ghosh, M

    A. Ghosh, M. Palit, S. Maity, V . Dwij, S. Rana, and S. Datta, Phys. Rev. B103, 064431 (2021)

    2021

  55. [70]

    J.-U. Lee, S. Lee, J. H. Ryoo, S. Kang, T. Y . Kim, P. Kim, C.-H. Park, J.-G. Park, and H. Cheong, Nano letters 16, 7433 (2016)

    2016

  56. [71]

    Gibertini, M

    M. Gibertini, M. Koperski, A. F. Morpurgo, and K. S. Novoselov, Nature nanotechnology 14, 408 (2019). 8

    2019

  57. [72]

    Ramos, F

    M. Ramos, F. Marques-Moros, D. L. Esteras, S. Mañas-Valero, E. Henríquez-Guerra, M. Gadea, J. J. Baldoví, J. Canet-Ferrer, E. Coronado, and M. R. Calvo, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 14, 33482 (2022)

    2022

  58. [73]

    Y . Shi, K. K. Kim, A. Reina, M. Hofmann, L.-J. Li, and J. Kong, ACS nano4, 2689 (2010)

    2010

  59. [74]

    Casto, A

    L. Casto, A. Clune, M. Yokosuk, J. Musfeldt, T. Williams, H. Zhuang, M.-W. Lin, K. Xiao, R. Hennig, B. Sales, et al., APL materials 3 (2015)

    2015

  60. [75]

    B. H. Zhang, Y . S. Hou, Z. Wang, and R. Q. Wu, Phys. Rev. B100, 224427 (2019)

    2019

  61. [76]

    Thingstad, E

    E. Thingstad, E. Erlandsen, and A. Sudbø, Phys. Rev. B 104, 014508 (2021)

    2021

  62. [77]

    Erlandsen and A

    E. Erlandsen and A. Sudbø, Phys. Rev. B 105, 184434 (2022)

    2022

  63. [78]

    S. T. Goennenwein, R. Schlitz, M. Pernpeintner, K. Ganzhorn, M. Althammer, R. Gross, and H. Huebl, Applied Physics Letters 107 (2015)

    2015

  64. [79]

    J. Li, Y . Xu, M. Aldosary, C. Tang, Z. Lin, S. Zhang, R. Lake, and J. Shi, Nature communications 7, 10858 (2016)

    2016

  65. [80]

    N. W. Ashcroft and N. Mermin, Physics (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston) Appendix C (1976)

    1976

  66. [81]

    S. S.-L. Zhang and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 096603 (2012)

    2012

  67. [82]

    Cheng, K

    Y . Cheng, K. Chen, and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B96, 024449 (2017)

    2017

  68. [83]

    Valet and A

    T. Valet and A. Fert, Phys. Rev. B 48, 7099 (1993)

    1993

  69. [84]

    S. M. Rezende, R. L. Rodríguez-Suárez, R. O. Cunha, A. R. Rodrigues, F. L. A. Machado, G. A. Fonseca Guerra, J. C. Lopez Ortiz, and A. Azevedo, Phys. Rev. B89, 014416 (2014)

    2014

  70. [85]

    Fert, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 2, 1784 (1969)

    A. Fert, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 2, 1784 (1969)

    1969

  71. [86]

    S. S.-L. Zhang and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 86, 214424 (2012). 9

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.