Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Pressure-tunable phase transitions in atomically thin Chern insulator MnBi$_2$Te$_4$

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hydrostatic pressure reorders the energy scales of five-layer MnBi2Te4, shrinking the trivial insulator gap while leaving the Chern gap nearly intact.

desk verdict Solid single-device pressure study with a convincing qualitative story, but the quantitative H_E/H_a extraction is underdetermined and needs error analysis or softened claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17449 v1 pith:FMJS4F2Z submitted 2025-07-23 cond-mat.mes-hall

Albin Marffy , Endre Tovari , Yu-Fei Liu , Anyuan Gao , Tianye Huang , Laszlo Oroszlany , Kenji Watanabe , Takashi Taniguchi
show 3 more authors
Su-Yang Xu Peter Makk Szabolcs Csonka
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords MnBi2Te4CherninsulatorquantumanomalousHalleffecthydrostaticpressureantiferromagnetictopologicaltrivialmagnetotransportlinearchainmodel
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

Odd-layer MnBi2Te4 is expected to be a quantum anomalous Hall insulator at zero field, yet in real devices the low-field state is usually a topologically trivial insulator, likely because disorder dominates the weak exchange gap. On a five-septuple-layer device, this paper uses magnetotransport at 0, 1, and 2 GPa to show that hydrostatic pressure is a genuine tuning knob for that phase diagram. The fitted interlayer antiferromagnetic exchange $H_E$ grows by about 25% up to 2 GPa, the easy-axis anisotropy $H_a$ drops by about 40%, the Néel temperature falls, the trivial zero-field gap $\Delta_0$ shrinks, and the high-field Chern insulator gap $\Delta_{\rm CI}$ stays nearly constant. The authors read this as compression weakening the disorder-dominated trivial insulator by increasing the localization length, though 2 GPa is not enough to restore zero-field quantization. The result matters because it identifies pressure as a parameter for steering MnBi2Te4 between trivial and Chern insulating behavior.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a linear chain model of the A-type antiferromagnet, in which each septuple layer is a macrospin and the energy is $f = H_E \sum_{j=2}^N \cos(\varphi_j-\varphi_{j-1}) - \frac{H_a}{2}\sum_{j=1}^N \cos^2\varphi_j - H \sum_{j=1}^N \cos\varphi_j$, with interlayer exchange $H_E>0$, easy-axis anisotropy $H_a>0$, and Zeeman coupling. The Hessian of this energy gives the stability edges of the AFM, canted-AFM, and ferromagnetic states; the saturation field $H_{\rm FM}=4H_E\cos^2(\pi/2N)-H_a$ is the key analytic handle that connects an increasing $H_{\rm FM}$ to a growing $H_E$ and shrinking $H_a$. The same model's phase boundaries produce $H_{c0}$ and $H_{\rm SF}$, and fitting all three to the field-sweep data yields $H_E$ and $H_a$ at each pressure. Independent of the magnetic fit, Arrhenius fits to $R_{xx}(T)$ at zero field and $R_{\rm bulk}(T)$ at 8 T give the trivial gap $\Delta_0$ and the Chern gap $\Delta_{\rm CI}$.

What would settle it

Measure the ferromagnetic onset field at 2 GPa directly: the paper extrapolates $H_{\rm FM}$ to about 9.2 T from the 0 and 1 GPa points, but an extrapolation of the Hall data from 6–8.5 T suggests roughly 16 T. A direct observation of saturation below the linear extrapolation would undermine the claimed increase in $H_E$; a value near the higher estimate would confirm it. A second check is to search for the small hysteresis predicted at the spin-flop transition, whose width should grow if $H_a/H_E$ changes with pressure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On a five-septuple-layer MnBi2Te4 flake, the paper establishes two well-separated insulating regimes and shows how pressure moves their boundary. At zero and low field the device is a trivial insulator: $R_{xy}$ near zero, large $R_{xx}$ and $R_{\rm bulk}$, no edge conduction, and a thermally activated gap $\Delta_0$. Above roughly 6–7 T at 0 and 1 GPa the flake enters the ferromagnetic phase and shows a quantized Hall resistance $R_{xy}\approx -h/e^2$ with $R_{xx}$ near zero—the Chern insulator state. Fitting the measured transition fields ($H_{c0}$ for the AFM–AFM flip, $H_{\rm SF}$ for the spin-flop, $H_{\rm FM}$ for ferromagnetic saturation) with the linear chain model, the authors find that $H_{\rm FM}$ increases with pressure while $H_{c0}$ and $H_{\rm SF}$ stay roughly constant; model fits give $H_E$ increasing by about 25% and $H_a$ decreasing by about 40% up to 2 GPa. Thermal-activation measurements show that $\Delta_0$ is strongly suppressed by pressure, while $\Delta_{\rm CI}$ changes little at 0 and 1 GPa (and its value at 2 GPa is likely underestimated because the FM phase sits beyond the measurement range). The conclusion is that pressure compresses the layers, lengthens the localization length, and thereby weakens the disorder-dominated trivial gap without yet recovering the zero-field quantum anomalous Hall effect.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on assigning the measured $H_{c0}$, $H_{\rm SF}$, and $H_{\rm FM}$ to the phase boundaries of one linear chain with a single set of $H_E$ and $H_a$, and on a linear extrapolation of $H_{\rm FM}$ to 2 GPa; the paper itself notes that layer-dependent magnetic parameters or domains could blur those assignments, and if they do, the inferred pressure dependence of $H_E$ and $H_a$ would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under pressure the ferromagnetic/Chern phase moves to higher fields, so at 2 GPa the quantized plateau is no longer reachable at 8.5 T.
  • The trivial zero-field gap $\Delta_0$ is suppressed while $\Delta_{\rm CI}$ stays nearly fixed, so the Chern state becomes more stable relative to the disorder-dominated low-field gap.
  • A decreasing $T_{\rm N}$ alongside an increasing $H_E$ implies that the intralayer ferromagnetic coupling $H_F$ weakens under pressure, likely because in-plane Mn–Mn distances shrink.
  • If pressure continues to weaken disorder, the zero-field quantum anomalous Hall effect may reappear at higher pressures, but the simultaneous decrease of the AFM exchange gap could prevent that recovery.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension is to press the same device beyond 2 GPa and watch whether $\Delta_0$ continues to shrink and whether a zero-field Hall plateau appears; this would test the disorder-localization mechanism against the competing gap-shrinking effect.
  • The single-chain fit treats all five layers as identical; if surface layers compress differently from interior ones, the quoted $H_E$ and $H_a$ are effective values, which could be tested by studying devices of different thicknesses under the same pressure.
  • Applying the same pressure protocol to even-layer MnBi2Te4 could separate disorder effects from intrinsic axion-insulator physics, since the even-layer zero-field plateau should be less sensitive to local-moment disorder.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports magnetotransport measurements on a 5-septuple-layer MnBi2Te4 flake under hydrostatic pressures of approximately 0, 1, and 2 GPa. At low magnetic field the device exhibits a trivial insulating state rather than the expected quantum anomalous Hall effect, attributed to disorder, while at high field it enters a ferromagnetic Chern insulator phase with quantized Hall resistance. The authors find that pressure reduces the Néel temperature, suppresses the trivial zero-field gap, keeps the Chern-insulator gap roughly constant, and increases the onset field of the ferromagnetic phase. Using a linear-chain model (Eq. 1 and Supplement Eq. S1) they infer from the fitted transition fields that the interlayer antiferromagnetic exchange H_E increases by about 25% and the anisotropy H_a decreases by about 40% up to 2 GPa, concluding that pressure weakens the disorder-dominated trivial insulator state. The central qualitative claims are the pressure-tunability of the magnetic phase diagram and the evolution of the transport gaps.

Significance. If the quantitative magnetic-parameter claims hold, the paper provides a useful demonstration that hydrostatic pressure can tune both magnetic interactions and the disorder-dominated insulating state in an intrinsic magnetic topological insulator, which is relevant for efforts to stabilize the quantum anomalous Hall effect in MnBi2Te4. The experimental work has notable strengths: measurements are performed on the same device across three pressure points; the bulk resistance is measured separately to rule out edge-state contributions; the high-field Hall quantization is convincingly identified; and the exclusion of the ordinary quantum Hall effect is supported by the gate-independent sign of the Hall plateau. The gap trends are extracted from systematic Arrhenius analysis over a range of gate voltages. However, the central quantitative inference about the 25% increase of H_E and 40% decrease of H_a is less robust than the qualitative picture, as discussed below, and therefore the manuscript needs revision before the quantitative claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplement, Section 3 (Eqs. S10, S11) and Fig. S8] The quantitative conclusion that H_E increases by ~25% and H_a decreases by ~40% rests entirely on the linear-chain model and on the assumption that H_c0 and H_SF are pressure-independent. No error bars or quantitative criterion are given for this assumption, and the 2 GPa H_FM value is obtained by linear extrapolation; the paper itself notes that an alternative extrapolation gives ~16 T instead of ~9.2 T. With only three pressure points and a slope-change identification of H_SF, the data cannot distinguish δH_c0 = 0 from a moderate trend. If H_c0 shifts with pressure, Eq. S11 no longer forces δH_E and δH_a to have opposite signs, so the inferred sign of δH_E is not determined. Please provide an uncertainty budget for the extracted parameters, and include a sensitivity analysis that permits H_c0 and H_SF to drift within the experimental uncertainty or explicitly justify why such drift can be excluded.
  2. [Supplement, Section 3 (spin-flop transition) and Fig. S7(d)] The paper acknowledges that the model predicts a sudden jump in R_xy at H_SF, whereas the experiment shows only a slope change, and attributes the discrepancy to layer-dependent magnetic parameters or domains. This is a direct challenge to the use of a single (H_E, H_a) parameter set to simultaneously interpret H_c0, H_SF, and H_FM. If layers are inequivalent or domains are present, the fitted H_E and H_a are effective parameters, and the sign of the interlayer-exchange change with pressure need not reflect the true microscopic H_E. Please test the sensitivity of the inferred sign of δH_E to a minimal layer-dependent or multi-domain extension of the model, or at least state explicitly which conclusions survive if the single-(H_E, H_a) model is only approximate.
  3. [Fig. 5(d) and the discussion of Δ_CI] The claim that the Chern-insulator gap remains 'nearly constant' with pressure is supported by only two measured points (0 and 1 GPa); the 2 GPa value is explicitly admitted to be underestimated because the FM phase has not formed by 8 T. The statement that the 2 GPa CI gap is comparable to the 1 GPa value is therefore speculative. This does not undermine the main qualitative trend that Δ_0 shrinks, but the manuscript should either soften the claim about Δ_CI or provide an independent estimate or upper bound at 2 GPa.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 3(d)] The transition-field symbols are plotted without error bars; please add error bars or state the estimated uncertainty of the field extraction for each phase boundary.
  2. [Main text, Eq. (1) and Supplement, Eq. S1] The notation is inconsistent: Eq. (1) uses dimensionless layer magnetizations M_j, while Eq. S1 uses angles φ_j; please make the equivalence explicit and define the units of H_E and H_a consistently.
  3. [Supplement, Eq. S10] The expression '4 cos 2(π/2N)' appears to be a typographical error; based on Eq. S8 it should read 4 cos^2(π/(2N)). Please correct and add parentheses for clarity.
  4. [Supplement, Sec. 1, Fig. S3] The extraction of H_c0 at 0 GPa from σ_xy is described only in the caption; please state the formula used to compute σ_xy from the measured R_xx and R_xy.
  5. [Main text, Methods, pressure cell] The pressure values are given as 'approximately 0, 1 and 2 GPa' without reporting the pressure-cell calibration or its uncertainty; please add this information or cite the method of Ref. [31] with explicit calibration details.
  6. [References] Reference [23] is cited as an arXiv preprint; if a peer-reviewed version has appeared, please update the citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the magnetic parameters are fitted to measured transition fields and labeled as estimates, not independent predictions.

full rationale

No circular derivation is present. The paper's central quantitative claim—that the interlayer exchange HE increases by about 25% and the anisotropy Ha decreases by about 40% under pressure—is obtained by fitting the linear-chain model (Supplementary Eq. S1) to the measured transition fields Hc0, HSF, and HFM, as shown in Fig. S8(a,b). This is parameter estimation from data, not a prediction: the transition fields are experimental inputs, the model is an external classical spin-chain framework attributed to Refs. 11, 17, 29, 30, and 32, and the paper explicitly describes the results as 'fits' and 'estimates' rather than as independent predictions. The qualitative inference that delta_HE > 0 and delta_Ha < 0 follows from Eqs. S10 and S11 only under the additional observational assumption that Hc0 and HSF are approximately pressure-independent; that assumption is a robustness or model-validity concern, not a circularity. The Supplement itself acknowledges possible layer-dependent magnetic parameters and domain effects that could compromise the single-(HE, Ha) model, but acknowledging a limitation is not circular reasoning. The only self-citation of note, Ref. 31, concerns the pressure-cell chip-carrier method and is not load-bearing for any physics conclusion. Potential weaknesses such as the linearly extrapolated HFM at 2 GPa and the absence of detailed error bars on the 'approximately constant' transition fields affect the uncertainty of the fitted parameters, but they do not make the derivation reduce to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative conclusions rely on two fitted magnetic parameters (H_E, H_a) and a set of physical assumptions about the macrospin model, the trivial-insulator interpretation, and the activated transport. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • H_E (interlayer AFM exchange) = increases from ~1.5 T to ~1.9 T (0 to 2 GPa, approximate from Fig. S8b)
    Fitted to the measured transition fields H_c0, H_SF, H_FM via the linear chain model.
  • H_a (magnetic anisotropy) = decreases from ~0.6 T to ~0.35 T (0 to 2 GPa, approximate from Fig. S8b)
    Fitted simultaneously with H_E to the transition fields.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Each septuple layer can be treated as a macrospin with unit magnetization (linear chain model, Eq. S1).
    Used to derive phase boundaries and extract H_E, H_a.
  • domain assumption Easy axis is out-of-plane and the magnetic field is applied along z; intralayer coupling is much stronger than interlayer.
    Macrospin model assumption, consistent with A-type AFM MBT.
  • domain assumption The low-field insulating state is a trivial Anderson insulator caused by disorder.
    Inferred from high resistance, near-zero Hall, and literature; not directly measured.
  • standard math Transport is thermally activated with a single activation energy below T_N.
    Underlies Arrhenius fits for Delta_0 and Delta_CI.
  • domain assumption Mean-field relation T_N ∝ H_F + H_E.
    Used in Discussion to interpret T_N decrease; from Refs. 37,38.
  • domain assumption The high-field quantized state is a Chern insulator with |C|=1.
    Based on R_xy ≈ h/e^2 and R_xx ≈ 0; no Landau fan, sign independent of V_g.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pressure-tunable phase transitions in atomically thin Chern insulator MnBi$_2$Te$_4$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FMJS4F2Z

@misc{pith2026250717449,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pressure-tunable phase transitions in atomically thin Chern insulator MnBi$_2$Te$_4$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FMJS4F2Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17449}
}
abstract

Topological insulators lacking time-reversal symmetry can exhibit the quantum anomalous Hall effect. Odd-layer thick MnBi$_2$Te$_4$ is a promising platform due to its intrinsic magnetic nature, however, quantization is rarely observed in it. Our magnetoresistance measurements in the anti-ferromagnetic phase indicate, instead of a quantum anomalous Hall insulator, the presence of a trivial insulator state likely due to disorder, while at high magnetic field a Chern insulator state appears. By applying hydrostatic pressure we are able to tune the magnetic interactions and the characteristic energy scales in the phase diagram. The trivial band gap is reduced, suggesting the role of disorder decreases with the compression of the layers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17449 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) A-type AFM order for five SLs. Black arrows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (d). The CI gap is more robust than the trivial gap for all pressures. ∆CI at 2 GPa is likely underestimated since the FM phase has not yet formed at 8 T. Rather, we expect that it is comparable to the value at 1 GPa. The 0 and 1 GPa points for ∆CI are in the FM phase,…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Electronic phases First we discuss the gate voltage (Vg) and the external magnetic field (H) dependence of the Hall, longitudinal, and bulk resistances at pressures of approximatelyp= 0, 1 and 2 GPa, shown in Fig. 2. The bulk resistanceR bulk was measured by grounding the contacts on both sides of the Hall bar (the three top and three bottom leads in Fig....

    work page

  2. [2]

    We interpret them in the framework of a linear chain model[11, 17, 29, 30, 32] with 3 FIG

    Magnetic phases The longitudinal magnetoresistance and especially the anomalous Hall resistance make it possible to determine the magnetic phase transitions. We interpret them in the framework of a linear chain model[11, 17, 29, 30, 32] with 3 FIG. 2.Magnetoresistance at a series of pressures(a) Map of the Hall (R xy), (b) the longitudinal (R xx) and (c) ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Temperature-dependence In order to study the nature of the different insulat- ing states as the system is tuned by hydrostatic pressure, we performed temperature-dependent measurements. In Fig. 5(a)R bulk is shown as a function ofV g andTin the FM phase atµ 0H= 8 T and 1 GPa. It exhibits a maxi- mum value centered near the CNP for allT. Moreover, it incre...

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    R. Yu, W. Zhang, H. J. Zhang, S. C. Zhang, X. Dai, and Z. Fang, Quantized anomalous hall effect in magnetic topological insulators, Science329, 61 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Chang, C.-X

    C.-Z. Chang, C.-X. Liu, and A. H. MacDonald, Collo- quium: Quantum anomalous Hall effect, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 11002 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    G. J. Ferreira and D. Loss, Magnetically Defined Qubits on 3D Topological Insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 106802 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Zhang, M

    D. Zhang, M. Shi, T. Zhu, D. Xing, H. Zhang, and J. Wang, Topological Axion States in the Magnetic In- sulator MnBi2Te4 with the Quantized Magnetoelectric Effect, Physical Review Letters122, 206401 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    M. M. Otrokov, I. I. Klimovskikh, H. Bentmann, D. Es- tyunin, A. Zeugner, Z. S. Aliev, S. Gaß, A. U. Wolter, A. V. Koroleva, A. M. Shikin, M. Blanco-Rey, M. Hoff- mann, I. P. Rusinov, A. Y. Vyazovskaya, S. V. Ere- meev, Y. M. Koroteev, V. M. Kuznetsov, F. Freyse, J. S´ anchez-Barriga, I. R. Amiraslanov, M. B. Babanly, N. T. Mamedov, N. A. Abdullayev, V. N...

    work page 2019

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    M. M. Otrokov, I. P. Rusinov, M. Blanco-Rey, M. Hoff- mann, A. Y. Vyazovskaya, S. V. Eremeev, A. Ernst, P. M. Echenique, A. Arnau, and E. V. Chulkov, Unique Thickness-Dependent Properties of the van der Waals In- terlayer Antiferromagnet MnBi2Te4 Films, Physical Re- view Lette...

    2019

  2. [10]

    L. Ding, C. Hu, F. Ye, E. Feng, N. Ni, and H. Cao, Crystal and magnetic structures of magnetic topological insulators MnBi2Te4 and MnBi4Te7, Physical Review B 101, 020412 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    J. Li, Y. Li, S. Du, Z. Wang, B.-L. Gu, S.-C. Zhang, K. He, W. Duan, and Y. Xu, Intrinsic magnetic topolog- ical insulators in van der Waals layered MnBi2Te4-family materials, Science Advances5, eaaw5685 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    C. Liu, Y. Wang, H. Li, Y. Wu, Y. Li, J. Li, K. He, Y. Xu, J. Zhang, and Y. Wang, Robust axion insulator and Chern insulator phases in a two-dimensional antifer- romagnetic topological insulator, Nature Materials19, 522 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    He, MnBi2Te4-family intrinsic magnetic topological materials, npj Quantum Materials5, 90 (2020)

    K. He, MnBi2Te4-family intrinsic magnetic topological materials, npj Quantum Materials5, 90 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Y. Deng, Y. Yu, M. Z. Shi, Z. Guo, Z. Xu, J. Wang, X. H. Chen, and Y. Zhang, Quantum anomalous Hall effect in intrinsic magnetic topological insulator MnBi2Te4, Sci- ence367, 895 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    R. Chen, S. Li, H. P. Sun, Q. Liu, Y. Zhao, H. Z. Lu, and X. C. Xie, Using nonlocal surface transport to iden- tify the axion insulator, Physical Review B103, L241409 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Y. Wang, B. Fu, Y. Wang, Z. Lian, S. Yang, Y. Li, L. Xu, Z. Gao, W. Jiang, J. Zhang, Y. Wang, and C. Liu, Towards the Quantized Anomalous Hall effect in AlO x- capped MnBi 2Te4, arxiv preprint 2405.08677 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Y. Li, C. Liu, Y. Wang, Z. Lian, S. Li, H. Li, Y. Wu, H. Z. Lu, J. Zhang, and Y. Wang, Giant nonlocal edge conduction in the axion insulator state of MnBi2Te4, Sci- ence Bulletin68, 1252 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    J. Ge, Y. Liu, J. Li, H. Li, T. Luo, Y. Wu, Y. Xu, and J. Wang, High-Chern-number and high-temperature quantum Hall effect without Landau levels, National Sci- ence Review7, 1280 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    C. Liu, Y. Wang, M. Yang, J. Mao, H. Li, Y. Li, J. Li, H. Zhu, J. Wang, L. Li, Y. Wu, Y. Xu, J. Zhang, and Y. Wang, Magnetic-field-induced robust zero Hall plateau state in MnBi2Te4 Chern insulator, Nature Com- munications12, 1 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Ovchinnikov, X

    D. Ovchinnikov, X. Huang, Z. Lin, Z. Fei, J. Cai, T. Song, M. He, Q. Jiang, C. Wang, H. Li, Y. Wang, Y. Wu, D. Xiao, J. H. Chu, J. Yan, C. Z. Chang, Y. T. Cui, and X. Xu, Intertwined Topological and Magnetic Orders in Atomically Thin Chern Insulator MnBi2Te4, Nano Let- ters21,...

    2021

  13. [21]

    A. Gao, Y. F. Liu, C. Hu, J. X. Qiu, C. Tzschaschel, B. Ghosh, S. C. Ho, D. B´ erub´ e, R. Chen, H. Sun, Z. Zhang, X. Y. Zhang, Y. X. Wang, N. Wang, Z. Huang, C. Felser, A. Agarwal, T. Ding, H. J. Tien, A. Akey, J. Gardener, B. Singh, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. S. Burch, D....

    2021

  14. [22]

    J. Cai, D. Ovchinnikov, Z. Fei, M. He, T. Song, Z. Lin, C. Wang, D. Cobden, J. H. Chu, Y. T. Cui, C. Z. Chang, D. Xiao, J. Yan, and X. Xu, Electric control of a canted- antiferromagnetic Chern insulator, Nature Communica- tions13, 1 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Z. Ying, S. Zhang, B. Chen, B. Jia, F. Fei, M. Zhang, H. Zhang, X. Wang, and F. Song, Experimental evidence for dissipationless transport of the chiral edge state of the high-field Chern insulator in MnBi2Te4 nanodevices, Physical Review B105, 085412 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Y. Li, Y. Bai, Y. Feng, J. Luan, Z. Gao, Y. Chen, Y. Tong, R. Liu, S. K. Chong, K. L. Wang, X. Zhou, J. Shen, J. Zhang, Y. Wang, C.-Z. Chen, X. Xie, X. Feng, K. He, and Q.-K. Xue, Reentrant quantum anomalous Hall effect in molecular beam epitaxy-grown MnBi2Te4 thin films, arxi...

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Zhang, R

    S. Zhang, R. Wang, X. Wang, B. Wei, B. Chen, H. Wang, G. Shi, F. Wang, B. Jia, Y. Ouyang, F. Xie, F. Fei, M. Zhang, X. Wang, D. Wu, X. Wan, F. Song, H. Zhang, and B. Wang, Experimental Observation of the Gate- Controlled Reversal of the Anomalous Hall Effect in the Intrinsic M...

    2020

  18. [26]

    S. K. Chong, C. Lei, J. Li, Y. Cheng, D. Graf, S. H. Lee, M. Tanabe, T.-H. Yang, Z. Mao, A. H. MacDon- ald, and K. L. Wang, Pressure tunable quantum anoma- lous Hall states in a topological antiferromagnet, arxiv preprint 2306.10325 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Y. F. Zhao, L. J. Zhou, F. Wang, G. Wang, T. Song, D. Ovchinnikov, H. Yi, R. Mei, K. Wang, M. H. Chan, C. X. Liu, X. Xu, and C. Z. Chang, Even-Odd Layer- Dependent Anomalous Hall Effect in Topological Magnet MnBi2Te4 Thin Films, Nano Letters21, 7691 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Garnica, M

    M. Garnica, M. M. Otrokov, P. C. Aguilar, I. I. Klimovskikh, D. Estyunin, Z. S. Aliev, I. R. Amiraslanov, N. A. Abdullayev, V. N. Zverev, M. B. Babanly, N. T. Mamedov, A. M. Shikin, A. Arnau, A. L. de Parga, E. V. Chulkov, and R. Miranda, Native point defects and their implica...

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Tan and B

    H. Tan and B. Yan, Distinct Magnetic Gaps between Antiferromagnetic and Ferromagnetic Orders Driven by Surface Defects in the Topological Magnet MnBi2Te4, Physical Review Letters130, 126702 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Y. Li, Y. Wang, Z. Lian, H. Li, Z. Gao, L. Xu, H. Wang, R. Lu, L. Li, Y. Feng, J. Zhu, L. Liu, Y. Wang, B. Fu, S. Yang, L. Yang, Y. Wang, T. Xia, C. Liu, S. Jia, Y. Wu, J. Zhang, Y. Wang, and C. Liu, Fabrication-induced even-odd discrepancy of magnetotransport in few-layer MnB...

    2024

  23. [31]

    R. Mei, Y. F. Zhao, C. Wang, Y. Ren, D. Xiao, C. Z. Chang, and C. X. Liu, Electrically Controlled Anoma- lous Hall Effect and Orbital Magnetization in Topological Magnet MnBi2Te4, Physical Review Letters132, 066604 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    S. Yang, X. Xu, Y. Zhu, R. Niu, C. Xu, Y. Peng, X. Cheng, X. Jia, Y. Huang, X. Xu, J. Lu, and Y. Ye, Odd-Even Layer-Number Effect and Layer-Dependent Magnetic Phase Diagrams in MnBi2Te4, Physical Review X11, 011003 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    B. Chen, X. Liu, Y.-H. Li, H. Tay, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. H. W. Chan, J. Yan, F. Song, R. Cheng, and C.-Z. Chang, Even-Odd Layer-Dependent Exchange Bias Effect in MnBi2Te4 Chern Insulator Devices, Nano Letters15, 13 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    F¨ ul¨ op, A

    B. F¨ ul¨ op, A. M´ arffy, E. T´ ov´ ari, M. Kedves, S. Zihlmann, D. Indolese, Z. Kov´ acs-Krausz, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, C. Sch¨ onenberger, I. K´ ezsm´ arki, P. Makk, and S. Csonka, New method of transport mea- surements on van der Waals heterostructures under pres- su...

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    S. K. Bac, K. Koller, F. Lux, J. Wang, L. Riney, K. Borisiak, W. Powers, M. Zhukovskyi, T. Orlova, M. Dobrowolska, J. K. Furdyna, N. R. Dilley, L. P. Rokhinson, Y. Mokrousov, R. J. McQueeney, O. Heinonen, X. Liu, and B. A. Assaf, Topological re- sponse of the anomalous Hall ef...

    2022

  28. [36]

    K. Y. Chen, B. S. Wang, J. Q. Yan, D. S. Parker, J. S. Zhou, Y. Uwatoko, and J. G. Cheng, Suppression of the antiferromagnetic metallic state in the pressurized MnBi2Te4 single crystal, Physical Review Materials3, 094201 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Song, Y.-Y

    Z.-G. Song, Y.-Y. Zhang, J.-T. Song, and S.-S. Li, Route towards Localization for Quantum Anomalous Hall Sys- tems with Chern Number 2, Scientific Reports6, 19018 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Zhang, C.-Z

    J. Zhang, C.-Z. Chang, P. Tang, Z. Zhang, X. Feng, K. Li, L.-l. Wang, X. Chen, C. Liu, W. Duan, K. He, Q.-K. Xue, X. Ma, and Y. Wang, Topology-Driven Magnetic Quan- tum Phase Transition in Topological Insulators, Science 339, 1582 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    J.-Q. Yan, S. Okamoto, M. A. McGuire, A. F. May, R. J. McQueeney, and B. C. Sales, Evolution of structural, magnetic, and transport properties in MnBi2-xSbxTe4, Phys. Rev. B100, 104409 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    UryU, Phase transition in antiferromagnets with anisotropic exchange interactions and uniaxial anisotropy, Phase Transitions28, 133 (1990)

    N. UryU, Phase transition in antiferromagnets with anisotropic exchange interactions and uniaxial anisotropy, Phase Transitions28, 133 (1990)

    1990

  33. [41]

    D. C. Johnston, Influence of uniaxial single-ion anisotropy on the magnetic and thermal properties of Heisenberg antiferromagnets within unified molecular field theory, Phys. Rev. B95, 94421 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    N. F. Mott and E. A. Davis,Electronic Processes in Non- Crystalline Materials, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979)

    1979

  35. [43]

    B. I. Shklovskii and A. L. Efros,Electronic Properties of Doped Semiconductors(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1984)

    1984

  36. [44]

    Pollak and B

    M. Pollak and B. I. Shklovskii,Hopping transport in solids(Elsevier, 1991)

    1991

  37. [45]

    C. Hu, T. Qian, and N. Ni, Recent progress in MnBi2nTe3n+1 intrinsic magnetic topological insulators: crystal growth, magnetism and chemical disorder, Na- tional Science Review11, nwad282 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    S. H. Lee, Y. Zhu, Y. Wang, L. Miao, T. Pillsbury, H. Yi, S. Kempinger, J. Hu, C. A. Heikes, P. Quar- terman, W. Ratcliff, J. A. Borchers, H. Zhang, X. Ke, D. Graf, N. Alem, C. Z. Chang, N. Samarth, and Z. Mao, Spin scattering and noncollinear spin structure-induced intrinsic ...

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    Z. Wang, M. Gibertini, D. Dumcenco, T. Taniguchi, 9 K. Watanabe, E. Giannini, and A. F. Morpurgo, Deter- mining the phase diagram of atomically thin layered an- tiferromagnet CrCl3, Nature Nanotechnology14, 1116 (2019). 10 Supplementary Material

    2019

  40. [48]

    AHE data at 2 GPa:In Fig

    Additional experimental data In this section we present further details of our measurements. AHE data at 2 GPa:In Fig. S1 the antisymmetrized Hall data at 2 GPa and 1.5 K and its analysis is shown, similarly to Fig. 4 in the main text. Panel (a) shows the anomalous Hall signal...

  41. [49]

    In this section we discuss the model and the magnetic phases and transition fields predicted by it

    The linear chain model An effective classical model similar to the Stoner-Wohlfarth model can be used to describe the magnetic phase transitions in an A-type AFM like MBT. In this section we discuss the model and the magnetic phases and transition fields predicted by it. In th...

  42. [50]

    When plotting the transition fields, we always follow the same colors as in Fig

    T ransitions in the linear chain model Here we discuss the experimentally observed phase transitions in light of the linear chain model. When plotting the transition fields, we always follow the same colors as in Fig. 3 in the main text, see for example Fig. S7(f). Regarding t...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.