Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Light-induced hysteresis of electronic polarization in antiferromagnet FePS3

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 The paper claims that light-induced electronic polarization in FePS3 is hysteretic at 2.0 eV but not at 1.6 eV, and that an octupolar component drives the memory effect.

desk verdict Careful data, but the 'hysteresis' is a static mirror asymmetry and the octupolar cos(6θ) component is not allowed in a linear dielectric tensor; the central claim does not survive. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01239 v1 pith:ZBPFGFIE submitted 2024-12-02 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-el

Kyung Ik Sim , Byung Cheol Park , Taesoo Kim , Byeong Wook Cho , Jae Hoon Kim , Eun-Mi Choi , Young Hee Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el
keywords light-inducedelectronicpolarizationhysteresisantiferromagnetFePS3octupolarlineardichroismvanderWaalssemiconductormultiferroicity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports that in the antiferromagnetic semiconductor FePS3, visible light can create an electronic polarization whose direction depends on the photon energy. Below the Néel temperature, 1.6 eV light produces polarization along the a-axis, whereas 2.0 eV light produces net polarization along the b-axis. The central observation is a hysteresis in the angle-dependent dielectric response at 2.0 eV—the response on the 0° to 90° sweep does not retrace the 90° to 180° sweep—while no such gap appears at 1.6 eV. The paper attributes the 2.0 eV hysteresis to a cos(6θ) octupolar component of the electronic polarization that, combined with the antiferromagnetic spin lattice, breaks mirror symmetry. If correct, this is a light-controlled, energy-selective electronic polarization memory in a magnetic semiconductor, a step toward multiferroic devices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the angle-resolved real dielectric function Re[ε](θ), measured by confocal transmission spectroscopy as the electric field direction θ is swept from 0° to 180° and then over the mirror range 90° to 180°. Its Fourier decomposition into dipolar cos(2θ) and octupolar cos(6θ) components is what lets the paper separate Pa from the octupole and assign the hysteresis. The multipole analysis, together with a BCS-type temperature fit of |δmax| (TN = 117 K) and the proportionality |δmax| = 0.13·ΔRe[εb] + 0.015, carries the quantitative argument that the octupolar polarization is the driver of the hysteresis.

What would settle it

Take the same FePS3 flake below TN and extract Re[ε](θ) at 2.0 eV from raw angle-resolved transmission data without the six-Gaussian transfer-function model; if no cos(6θ) component survives a direct Fourier transform of the absorbance, the octupolar origin of the hysteresis is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that light-induced electronic polarization in FePS3 is hysteretic at 2.0 eV and not at 1.6 eV, and that the hysteresis comes from an octupolar component. The authors identify dipolar (cos(2θ)) and octupolar (cos(6θ)) terms in the Fourier decomposition of Re[ε](θ); the dipolar term alone explains the 1.6 eV behavior and linear dichroism, while the octupolar term appears only near 2.0 eV and produces the hysteresis gap |δmax|. They connect the gap to the b-axis polarization Pb and ultimately to a mirror-symmetry breaking of the combined spin-lattice-plus-light state below TN = 117 K. The proposal is a new mechanism for multiferroicity: light-induced electronic multipoles, not lattice or magnetic order alone, break the symmetry needed for a switchable polarization.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the sixfold (cos(6θ)) angular variation in the measured dielectric response is a genuine electronic octupole and not a by-product of the multi-oscillator fitting or of an unmodeled nonlinear optical process; if that component is not real, the proposed origin of the hysteresis gap collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 2.0 eV, sweeping the light polarization angle forward and backward in FePS3 below TN gives two distinct response paths, so the final electronic state depends on the history of the illumination angle—an optical memory element in a magnetic semiconductor.
  • At 1.6 eV the response is non-hysteretic, so photon energy selects between a reversible polarization channel and a memory channel in the same material.
  • The hysteresis gap follows the antiferromagnetic order parameter, turning on sharply below 117 K, so the effect is controlled by the magnetic state rather than by the lattice.
  • The magnitude of the gap is proportional to the b-axis change in Re[ε] with a fitted coefficient (0.13), giving a quantitative relation that can be checked by independent optical measurements.
  • The proposed octupolar mechanism implies that higher-order electronic multipoles, not just dipoles, can drive multiferroic-type symmetry breaking under light.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because a strictly linear rank-2 dielectric tensor can only produce a cos(2θ) angular variation, an independent probe of the proposed octupole—for example, optical second-harmonic generation or a nonlinear susceptibility measurement—would test whether the cos(6θ) term is a genuine electronic multipole.
  • A natural extension is to search for the same energy-selective hysteresis in other Ising-type honeycomb antiferromagnets; if the octupole mechanism is generic, the hysteresis gap should appear at the high-energy d-d transition in each material and vanish above its Néel temperature.
  • Time-resolved pump-probe measurements could distinguish an electronic octupole memory from a slow structural rearrangement: if the hysteresis forms within the d-d excitation lifetime, it is electronic; if it requires sustained illumination, a longer-lived lattice or spin reorganization is involved.
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 polarization-resolved transmission spectroscopy of the antiferromagnetic semiconductor FePS3 below its Néel temperature (TN ~117 K). From angle-dependent transmission spectra, the authors extract the real and imaginary parts of the dielectric constant via multi-oscillator fits (six Gaussians plus a Cauchy term) and observe linear dichroism below TN. They further plot Re[ε](θ) − min(Re[ε](θ)) over 0°–90° and 90°–180°, finding that the two angular intervals ('Path I' and 'Path II') overlap at 1.6 eV but split at 2.0 eV. This splitting is described as a 'hysteresis gap' and is attributed to a light-induced electronic octupolar polarization combined with dipolar polarization, associated with a broken mirror symmetry of the light-excited state. The paper claims light-induced hysteresis of electronic polarization and proposes a mechanism for light-induced multiferroicity.

Significance. If the central claim were valid, the observation of light-induced, history-dependent electronic polarization in an antiferromagnetic semiconductor would be a substantial new result with implications for optical control of multiferroic order. The paper has some strengths: it includes temperature-dependent data, reproducibility across three samples of different thickness, a stability check after 9 months of air exposure, and a BCS-type fit for the temperature dependence of the claimed gap. However, the manuscript's central claims rely on two problematic assumptions: (i) that the observed difference between two angular intervals constitutes true hysteresis (a history-dependent memory effect), and (ii) that a cos(6θ) component can appear in the linear dielectric constant of a homogeneous crystal. Both assumptions are unsupported, and the second is physically inconsistent for a rank-2 tensor. Because these issues undermine the main conclusions, the paper in its current form is unlikely to make a sound contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2 (Figure 4a,b)] The central claim of 'hysteresis' is not supported by the experimental evidence. The data are obtained from a static angular sweep: Re[ε](θ) is measured over 0°–90° and then over 90°–180° in a single pass, and the difference between these two intervals is a static mirror asymmetry of the function Re[ε](θ), i.e., Re[ε](θ) ≠ Re[ε](180°−θ). True hysteresis requires the response to depend on the history of the external parameter (here, the polarization angle or illumination history), typically shown by bidirectional sweeps yielding different branches. The manuscript provides no test of history dependence or memory. Thus the abstract's claim of 'light-induced hysteresis of electronic polarization' is an overclaim; what is observed is a static angular anisotropy with broken mirror symmetry below TN. This concern is load-bearing because the novelty claimed in the title and abstract rests entirely on the word 'hysteresis'.
  2. [§2 (Figure 4d; Fourier analysis of Re[ε](θ))] The identification of a cos(6θ) 'octupolar' component in the linear dielectric constant is physically inconsistent. For a homogeneous medium, the linear permittivity is a rank-2 tensor, and the measured quantity Re[ε](θ) = e_i(θ) Re[ε_ij] e_j(θ) is bilinear in the direction cosines; its angular dependence can contain only a constant and cos(2θ)/sin(2θ) terms (equivalently l = 0 and l = 2). A cos(6θ) component cannot arise in the linear response of a bulk crystal, independent of any static octupolar order parameter, unless a nonlinear optical process or a different observable (e.g., intensity) is involved. The claimed octupolar component in Fig. 4d therefore most likely arises from the multi-oscillator fitting procedure (six Gaussians plus a Cauchy term) rather than from a physical electronic octupole. Removing this component removes the proposed origin of the hysteresis gap, so this is a load-bearing error.
  3. [§2 (Figure 4e and correlation |δmax| = α ΔRe[εb] + β)] The 'explanation' of the hysteresis gap by octupolar polarization is circular. Both the hysteresis gap |δmax| and the octupolar amplitude are extracted from the same fitted Re[ε](θ) spectra, so their agreement in Fig. 4e does not provide independent confirmation. Furthermore, the linear relation |δmax| = α × ΔRe[εb] + β (α = 0.13, β = 0.015) introduces two additional fitted parameters, and the BCS-type fit |δmax|(T) = A tanh(2.3√(TN/T − 1)) introduces A as a free parameter. The paper does not discuss the number of free parameters used to generate the key quantities, nor does it provide an error analysis that would allow the reader to judge whether the apparent correlations are statistically meaningful. Without an independent test of the octupolar hypothesis, the claim that octupolar polarization 'drives' the hysteresis is not established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Fig. 4a,b] The term 'hysteresis' is used even when the two paths overlap (e.g., 'hysteresis without a gap' in the caption of Fig. S6). This loose terminology obscures the distinction between a two-path plot constructed from two angular intervals and a genuine history-dependent loop. A more neutral descriptor, such as 'angular asymmetry' or 'mirror-symmetry breaking,' would be more accurate.
  2. [§2 (Fig. 4c)] The BCS-type model for |δmax|(T) is introduced without justification or reference. The constant 2.3 in the exponent and the choice of tanh functional form need to be motivated, or the fit should be presented as phenomenological with suitable caveats.
  3. [Methods (Modeled transfer function)] The dielectric constants are obtained from fits with a large number of free parameters (six Gaussians plus Cauchy terms for each spectrum), but the manuscript gives no uncertainties on the fitted parameters or on the resulting Re[ε](θ) values. The reader cannot assess whether the small differences that produce |δmax| are within the fitting error.
  4. [Fig. 4d] The Fourier decomposition labels components as 'dipolar' and 'octupolar.' Since the linear dielectric tensor is rank-2, such labels are misleading; the angular components in the linear response should be described by their l = 0,2 (and possibly higher if nonlinear) origins, not by static multipole moments.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The octupolar-origin-of-hysteresis claim re-describes the same fitted Re[ε](θ) data that defines the gap, and 'hysteresis' is a static angular asymmetry; the central novelty is partially circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 2, Figure 4a-b and the |δmax| definition; Abstract]
    "At 10 K (blue dots and curve in Figure 4b), the ε(θ) data exhibits an increase from 0° to 90° and a decrease from 90° to 180° along the distinct path. A noticeable hysteresis gap, quantified by the maximum hysteresis gap (∣δmax∣), is observed for 2.0 eV at 10 K, in contrast to the absence of a hysteresis gap for 1.6 eV at 10 K."

    The 'hysteresis gap' is defined as the difference between the two angular branches of a single static measurement of Re[ε](θ); no forward/reverse sweep, time delay, or illumination history enters. By construction the gap equals the static mirror asymmetry Re[ε](θ) ≠ Re[ε](180°−θ). The abstract and conclusion then present 'hysteresis of electronic polarization' as light-induced memory, but that claim is just the same static asymmetry relabeled. The experimental design cannot distinguish history dependence from persistent angular anisotropy, so the central novelty reduces to the definition of |δmax| as a branch gap.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 2, Figure 4d-e and the Fourier-analysis paragraph; Supporting Figure S12]
    "Through Fourier analysis, we extract the contributions of electronic dipolar and octupolar polarizations to distinct physical properties: dipolar polarization for LD and octupolar polarization for |δmax|. ... the energy-dependent |δmax| is consistent with the dispersion of the electronic octupolar polarization, as revealed by Fourier analysis of the angle-dependent Re[ε](θ) across various energies."

    Both |δmax|(E) and the octupolar amplitude O(E) are functionals of the same model-fitted Re[ε](θ,E) spectra (six Gaussians plus Cauchy). O(E) is a Fourier coefficient of those curves, while |δmax|(E) is the Path-I/Path-II branch gap of the same curves; moreover the cos(6θ) term is an added fit component rather than an independently measured observable for a linear rank-2 dielectric tensor. Calling the agreement 'consistent with' the octupole dispersion is therefore not an independent confirmation of the mechanism; the octupole is a re-description of the input data in a different basis. The 'explanation' does not predict any new measurement.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2, paragraph after Figure 4e; Supporting Figure S12 caption]
    "We also note that this profile of the energy-dependent ∣δmax∣ is reproduced by the energy-dependent ΔRe[εb] along the b-axis (Supporting Information Figure S12). We find the direct proportionality between ∣δmax∣ and ΔRe[εb] as follows: ∣δmax∣ = α × ΔRe[εb] + β, where α = 0.13 and β = 0.015."

    This 'reproduction' is a post-hoc two-parameter fit (α, β) applied to quantities that both come from the same dielectric-function modeling of the same transmission data. No independent prediction or out-of-sample test is made. The fitted linear relation cannot establish causation between Pb and the gap; it only states that a scaled version of one derived curve matches another derived curve, which is expected when both are derived from the same Re[ε](θ) spectra.

full rationale

The paper reports a real experimental observation of angle-dependent optical anisotropy below TN, and the basic LD and ΔRe[ε] analysis is self-contained and not circular. The circularity is concentrated in the explanatory layer that forms the headline. First, the 'hysteresis' is defined as the gap between two branches of one static angular sweep, so the light-induced memory/hysteresis claim is a relabeling of static mirror-symmetry breaking rather than a measured history effect. Second, the octupolar polarization invoked as the origin of the gap is obtained by Fourier-fitting the very same Re[ε](θ) curves from which the gap is computed; its agreement with |δmax|(E) is a fit consistency, not an independent derivation. Third, the supporting proportionality to ΔRe[εb] uses fitted α and β and is not a predictive test. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness theorem is involved, so this is not an 8–10 case; but because the central novelty (light-induced octupolar hysteresis) reduces to a re-description of the same fitted data, a score of 6 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim requires the existence of a cos(6θ) octupolar component in the linear dielectric function, a single-domain sample, and a heavily parametrized dielectric model. The octupolar component is ad hoc and likely invalid, and the light-induced phase is hypothesized without independent evidence.

free parameters (3)
  • Oscillator parameters (six Gaussians plus Cauchy) per spectrum = Not disclosed
    Re[ε](θ) used for all central analyses is obtained by fitting transmission with 6 Gaussian oscillators (amplitude, energy, broadening each) and 5 Cauchy dispersion parameters. The angle-dependent hysteresis and Fourier coefficients depend entirely on these fits.
  • α, β in |δmax| = α × ΔRe[εb] + β = α = 0.13, β = 0.015
    The proportionality between hysteresis gap and b-axis polarization change is fitted to the data, not derived from a model.
  • A in BCS-type fit |δmax|(T) = A tanh(2.3 sqrt(TN/T - 1)) = A = 0.043 (S#1), 0.038 (S#2, S#3); TN = 117 K
    The amplitude A is fitted for each sample, and TN is taken as the transition temperature. The BCS form is an empirical fitting function.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The linear dielectric constant Re[ε](θ) can contain cos(6θ) angular components, interpreted as octupolar polarization.
    Invoked at Figure 4d. This is inconsistent with the rank-2 tensor nature of linear optical response, which limits in-plane angular harmonics to cos(2θ) and sin(2θ).
  • domain assumption The sample is a single domain and the 5 μm beam spot averages over no domain walls.
    Stated in the experimental setup and Figure 1b,c. Multi-domain averaging could produce spurious angular asymmetries.
  • domain assumption The optical sum rule holds: the decrease in Im[ε] along the b-axis equals the increase along the a-axis.
    Used in Figure 3a to claim light-induced charge transfer from armchair to zigzag direction. The equal-area statement is approximate and not rigorously verified with error bars.
  • domain assumption The transfer-matrix model with quartz refractive index n3 = 1.54 and flake thickness d = 128 nm accurately captures the measured transmission.
    Methods section, 'Modeled transfer function'. Systematic errors in thickness or substrate index would propagate into Re[ε](θ).
  • standard math The monoclinic crystal structure of FePS3 has mirror symmetry Mb perpendicular to the b-axis but no mirror symmetry across the a-axis or c-axis.
    Symmetry analysis in Figure 4f-h relies on the C2/m space group assignment. If the space group were different, the mirror-symmetry argument would change.
invented entities (2)
  • Electronic octupolar polarization
    purpose: To explain the hysteresis gap at 2.0 eV by breaking mirror symmetry in the light-induced phase.
    Inferred solely from a cos(6θ) Fourier component of the same Re[ε](θ) data. No independent probe (e.g., nonlinear optics, resonant x-ray scattering) confirms the octupole.
  • Light-induced low-symmetric phase
    purpose: A state below TN with Pb polarization that breaks mirror symmetry and produces the hysteresis.
    Hypothesized phase. No direct structural or magnetic characterization of a light-induced steady state is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light-induced hysteresis of electronic polarization in antiferromagnet FePS3." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZBPFGFIE

@misc{pith2026241201239,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light-induced hysteresis of electronic polarization in antiferromagnet FePS3},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZBPFGFIE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01239}
}
read the original abstract

Research on manipulating materials using light has garnered significant interest, yet examples of controlling electronic polarization in magnetic materials remain scarce. Here, we demonstrate the hysteresis of electronic polarization in the antiferromagnetic semiconductor FePS3 via light. Below the N\'eel temperature, we observe linear dichroism (i.e., optical anisotropy) without structural symmetry breaking. Light-induced net polarization aligns along the a-axis (zigzag direction) at 1.6 eV due to the dipolar polarization and along the b-axis (armchair direction) at 2.0 eV due to the combined effects of dipolar and octupolar polarizations, resulting from charge transfer from the armchair to the zigzag direction by light. Unexpected hysteresis of the electronic polarization occurs at 2.0 eV due to the octupolar polarization, in contrast to the absence of such hysteresis at 1.6 eV. We attribute this to a symmetry breaking of the light-induced phase of FePS3 involving electronic polarization within the spin lattice. This study suggests a new mechanism for generating and controlling electronic polarization in magnetic materials using light, with implications for future device applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. R. Schaibley, H. Yu, G. Clark, P. Rivera, J. S. Ross, K. L. Seyler, W. Yao, X. Xu, Nat. Rev. Mater. 2016, 1, 16055

    2016

  2. [2]

    Zhong, K

    D. Zhong, K. L. Seyler, X. Linpeng, R. Cheng, N. Sivadas, B. Huang, E. Schmid gall, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. A. McGuire, W. Yao, D. Xiao, K. -M. C. Fu, X. Xu, Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1603113

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    S. A. Vitale, D. Nezich, J. O. Varghese, P. Kim, N. Gedik, P. Jarillo -Herrero, D. Xiao, M. Rothschild, Small 2018, 14, 1801483

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    V. A. Milichko, S. V. Makarov, A. V. Yulin, A. V. Vinogradov, A. A. Krasilin, E. Ushakova, V. P. Dzyuba, E. Hey- Hawkins, E. A. Pidko, P. A. Belov, Adv. Ma ter. 2017, 29, 1606034

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Jiang, S

    Y. Jiang, S. Chen, W. Zheng, B. Zheng, A. Pan, Light: Sci. Appl. 2021, 10, 72

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Ciarrocchi, F

    A. Ciarrocchi, F. Tagarelli, A. Avsar, A. Kis, Nat. Rev. Mater. 2022, 7, 449

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    X. Xi, Z. Wang, W. Zhao, J. -H. Park, K. T. Law, H. Berger, L. Forró, J. Shan, K. F. Mak, Nat. Phys. 2016, 12, 139

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Kezilebieke, M

    S. Kezilebieke, M. N. Huda, V. Vaňo, M. Aapro, S. C. Ganguli, O. J. Silveira, S. Głodzik, A. S. Foster, T. Ojanen, P. Liljeroth, Nature 2020, 588, 424

    work page 2020

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Zheng, X

    B. Zheng, X. Feng, B. Liu, Z. Liu, S. Wang, Y. Zhang, X. Ma, Y. Luo, C. Wan g, R. Li, Z. Zhang, S. Cui, Y. Lu, Z. Sun, J. He, S. A. Yang, B. Xiang, Small 2024, 20, 2305909

    2024

  2. [10]

    K. S. Burch, D. Mandrus, J.- G. Park, Nature 2018, 563, 47

    2018

  3. [12]

    Jenkins, L

    S. Jenkins, L. Rózsa, U. Atxitia, R. F. L. Evans, K. S. Novoselov, E. J. G. Sant os, Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 6917

    2022

  4. [13]

    H. Li, S. Ruan, Y. Zeng, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1900065

    2019

  5. [14]

    M. Wang, C. Huang, C. Cheung, C. Chen, S. G. Tan, T. Huang, Y. Zhao, Y. Zh ao, G. Wu, Y. Feng, H. Wu, C. Chang, Ann. Phys. 2020, 532, 1900452

    2020

  6. [15]

    S. Yang, T. Zhang, C. Jiang, Adv. Sci. 2021, 8, 2002488

    2021

  7. [16]

    T. F. Nova, A. Cartella, A. Cantaluppi, M. Först, D. Bossini, R. V. Mikhaylovski y, A. V. Kimel, R. Merlin, A. Cavalleri, Nat. Phys. 2017, 13, 132

    2017

  8. [17]

    A. S. Disa, M. Fechner, T. F. Nova, B. Liu, M. Först, D. Prabhakaran, P. G. Ra daelli, A. Cavalleri, Nat. Phys. 2020, 16, 937

    2020

  9. [18]

    T. F. Nova, A. S. Disa, M. Fechner, A. Cavalleri, Science 2019, 364, 1075

    2019

  10. [19]

    X. Li, T. Qiu, J. Zhang, E. Baldini, J. Lu, A. M. Rappe, K. A. Nelson, Science 2019, 364, 1079. 19

    2019

  11. [20]

    Zhang, T.- F

    P. Zhang, T.- F. Chung, Q. Li, S. Wang, Q. Wang, W. L. B. Huey, S. Yang, J. E. Goldberger, J. Yao, X. Zhang, Nat. Mater. 2022, 21, 1373

    2022

  12. [21]

    Y., & Cardona, M

    Yu, P. Y., & Cardona, M. Fundamentals of Semiconductors: Physics and Material s Properties 4th ed. , Sp ringer, 2010

    2010

  13. [22]

    Zhang, T

    X. Zhang, T. Carbin, A. B. Culver, K. Du, K. Wang, S.- W. Cheong, R. Roy, A. Kogar, Nat. Mater. 2024, 1

    2024

  14. [23]

    Basini, M

    M. Basini, M. Pancaldi, B. Wehinger, M. Udina, V. Unikandanunni, T. Tadano, M. C. Hoffmann, A. V. Balatsky, S. Bonetti, Nature 2024, 628, 534

    2024

  15. [24]

    Q. Song, C. A. Occhialini, E. Ergeçen, B. Ilyas, D. Amoroso, P. Barone, J. Kape ghian, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. S. Botana, S. Picozzi, N. Gedik, R. Comin, Nature 2022, 602, 601

    2022

  16. [25]

    Z. Sun, Y. Su, A. Zhi, Z. Gao, X. Han, K. Wu, L. Bao, Y. Huang, Y. Shi, X. Bai, P. Cheng, L. Chen, K. Wu, X. Tian, C. Wu, B. Feng, Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 4252

    2024

  17. [26]

    Jiang, Y

    Y. Jiang, Y. Wu, J. Zhang, J. Wei, B. Peng, C.- W. Qiu, Nature 2023, 619, E40

    2023

  18. [27]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi, J. Appl. Crystallography ., 44, 1272- 1276 (2011)

    2011

  19. [28]

    Murayama, M

    C. Murayama, M. Okabe, D. Urushihara, T. Asaka, K. Fukuda, M. Isobe, K. Yam amoto, Y. Matsushita, J. Appl. Phys. 2016, 120, 142114

    2016

  20. [29]

    & Grüner, G , Electrodynamics of Solids , CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2003

    Dressel, M. & Grüner, G , Electrodynamics of Solids , CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2003

    2003

  21. [30]

    Fox, M , Optical Properties of Solids, 2 nd Edition, Oxford University Press, 2010

    2010

  22. [31]

    A. K. Budniak, S. J. Zelewski, M. Birowska, T. Woźniak, T. Bendikov, Y. Kauff mann, Y. Amouyal, R. Kudrawiec, E. Lifshitz, Adv . Opt. Mater. 2022, 10, 210248 9

    2022

  23. [32]

    P. A. Joy, S. Vasudevan, Phys . Rev. B 1992, 46, 5134

    1992

  24. [33]

    Zhang, K

    Q. Zhang, K. Hwangbo, C. Wang, Q. Jiang, J.- H. Chu, H. Wen, D. Xiao, X. Xu, Nano Lett . 2021, 21, 6938

    2021

  25. [34]

    Zhang, Z

    H. Zhang, Z. Ni, C. E. Stevens, A. Bai, F. Peiris, J. R. Hendrickson, L. Wu, D. Jariwala, Nat. Photonics 2022, 16, 311

    2022

  26. [35]

    Z. Ni, N. Huang, A. V. Haglund, D. G. Mandrus, L. Wu, Nano Lett . 2022, 22, 3 283

    2022

  27. [36]

    Y. Lee, S. Son, C. Kim, S. Kang, J. Shen, M. Kenzelmann, B. Delley, T. Savche nko, S. Parchenko, W. Na, K. Choi, W. Kim, H. Cheong, P. M. Derlet, A. Kleib ert, J. Park, Adv. Electron. Mater. 2023, 9, 202200650

    2023

  28. [37]

    J.-U. Lee, S. Lee, J. H. Ryoo, S. Kang, T. Y. Kim, P. Kim, C.- H. Park, J.- G. Pa rk, H. Cheong, Nano Lett . 2016, 16, 7433

    2016

  29. [38]

    D. D. S. Meneses, M. Malki, P. Echegut, J. Non- Cryst. Solids 2006, 352, 769. 20

    2006

  30. [39]

    Hiroyuki Fujiwara , Spectroscopic Ellipsometry: Principles and Applications , Wiley, 2007

    2007

  31. [40]

    Z. Q. Li, E. A. Henriksen, Z. Jiang, Z. Hao, M. C. Martin, P. Kim, H. L. Storm er, D. N. Basov, Nat. Phys. 2008, 4, 532

    2008

  32. [41]

    Y. Shao, K. W. Post, J.- S. Wu, S. Dai, A. J. Frenzel, A. R. Richardella, J. S. Le e, N. Samarth, M. M. Fogler, A. V. Balatsky, D. E. Kharzeev, D. N. Basov, Nan o Lett. 2017, 17, 980

    2017

  33. [42]

    Koitzsch, T

    A. Koitzsch, T. Klaproth, S. Selter, Y. Shemerliuk, S. Aswartham, O. Janson, B. Büchner, M. Knupfer, npj Quantum Mater. 2023, 8, 27

    2023

  34. [43]

    H.-J. Koo, R. Kremer, M.- H. Whangbo, Molecules 2021, 26, 1410

    2021

  35. [44]

    X.-G. Zhou, Z. Yang, Y. Lee, J. Park, Y. Kohama, K. Kindo, Y. H. Matsuda, J.- G. Park, O. Janson, A. Miyata, (Preprint) arXiv:2405.10326, v1, submitted: May 2 024

    arXiv

  36. [45]

    Ghosh, M

    A. Ghosh, M. Palit, S. Maity, V. Dwij, S. Rana, S. Datta, Phys. Rev. B 2021, 10 3, 064431. 21 Supporting Information for Light-induced hysteresis of electronic polarization in antiferromagnet FePS3 Kyung Ik Sim1,2,†, Byung Cheol Park1,2,†, Taesoo Kim1,2, Byeong Wook Cho1,2, Ja...

    2021

Pith tools

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