Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 29 references

Dynamics of current-induced switching in the quantum anomalous Hall effect

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 Current-induced magnetization reversal in V-doped (Bi,Sb)2Te3 quantum anomalous Hall devices is thermally activated by Joule heating, follows an Arrhenius law over nine orders of magnitude, and is not caused by spin-transfer torques.

desk verdict Careful time-resolved study with a plausible thermal-activation mechanism; the quantitative Te model is underdetermined, but the qualitative case against spin-transfer torque is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19665 v1 pith:K2RWCXZI submitted 2025-07-25 cond-mat.mes-hall

Alina Rupp , Daniel Rosenbach , Torsten Röper , Dominik Hoborka , Alexey A. Taskin , Yoichi Ando , Erwann Bocquillon This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords quantumanomalousHalleffectmagnetizationswitchingJouleheatingthermalactivationArrheniuslawstretchedexponentialV-doped(BiSb)2Te3chiraledgestates
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 reports time-resolved measurements of current-induced magnetization switching in 8 nm films of V-doped (Bi,Sb)2Te3 in the quantum anomalous Hall regime, a topological phase whose conduction is carried by a single chiral edge state tied to the magnetization direction. It argues that the reversal is thermally activated: voltage pulses dissipate Joule heat that raises the electron temperature, exponentially shortening the switching time, and the reversal proceeds by flipping many independent magnetic domains. The signature is an Arrhenius law $t_{\rm sw} = t_0 \exp(A/V^{2/\alpha})$ that holds over nine orders of magnitude in switching time, with $\alpha$ determined from separate DC thermometry. If correct, this identifies a thermal pathway for flipping the chirality of quantum anomalous Hall edge states and rules out spin-transfer torques in these devices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Arrhenius activation law chained to a Joule-heating/electron-phonon cooling balance. A pulse dissipates power $P_{\rm diss} \propto V^2$; the electrons equilibrate at temperature $T_e$; cooling to the lattice follows $P_{\rm out} = \Sigma(T_e^\alpha - T_p^\alpha)$; equating the two gives $T_e \propto V^{2/\alpha}$ at high drive. Inserting this into $t_{\rm sw} = t_0 \exp(E(H)/(k_B T_e))$ yields the fitted form $t_{\rm sw} = t_0 \exp(A/V^{2/\alpha})$. The stretched-exponential response models the reversal as the sum of many independent domain flips with a broad distribution of switching times.

What would settle it

Measure the electron temperature directly during the same 25 ns pulses used for switching (e.g., by noise thermometry or a second calibrated mesa) and check whether $T_e$ scales as $V^{2/\alpha}$ and reaches the value required by the Arrhenius fit; if switching proceeds at a $T_e$ far below that value, or if $t_{\rm sw}$ changes when the substrate thermal path is altered, the thermal-activation claim is disproven.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that in these V-BST quantum anomalous Hall devices, current-induced magnetization reversal is driven by Joule heating, not by spin-transfer torques. Under a small opposing magnetic field, a voltage pulse heats the electron system above 10 K, exponentially reducing the switching time of individual magnetic domains according to $t_{\rm sw} = t_0 \exp(E(H)/(k_B T_e))$ with $T_e \propto V^{2/\alpha}$. The reversal is not a single coherent flip: the Hall resistance relaxes as a stretched exponential $R_{xy}(t) = R_0(1-2\exp(-(t/t_{\rm sw})^\beta))$ with $\beta$ as low as 0.4, indicating many independent switching regions. The same Arrhenius form reproduces the magnetic-field dependence of $t_{\rm sw}$, and the absence of switching under in-plane fields plus the independence of pulse polarity are presented as ruling out spin-transfer torques as the dominant mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that the whole electron system heats uniformly to a single temperature $T_e$ and that the electron-phonon cooling exponent $\alpha$, calibrated from DC resistance thermometry below about 0.6 K, still holds when pulses push $T_e$ above 10 K; if temperature is non-uniform or the cooling law changes under strong bias, the Arrhenius reading of $t_{\rm sw}(V)$ would lose its quantitative foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Switching times can be predicted from the pulse amplitude alone once $\alpha$ and the barrier scale $A(H)$ are known, without invoking spin-torque physics.
  • The stroboscopic resistance technique can probe the onset of percolative transport through magnetic puddles during partial reversal.
  • Thermal, rather than electrical, control of the magnetization implies that local heating—by a focused laser or a heated gate—should reverse the edge-state direction in a confined region.
  • The extracted anisotropy parameters ($n \simeq 3$, $H_a \simeq 1\text{–}1.6$ T) provide quantitative inputs for designing QAH-based reconfigurable circuits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the thermal picture is right, devices on better heat-sinking substrates should switch more slowly at the same pulse amplitude; measuring $t_{\rm sw}(V)$ across substrates with different thermal conductivity would test this directly.
  • The same model may explain why some earlier QAH switching experiments saw a sharp voltage threshold: the threshold could be where Joule heating pushes $T_e$ over $E(H)/k_B$, rather than where spin torque overcomes damping.
  • Tracking the stretching exponent $\beta$ as a function of $t_{\rm sw}$ could map the distribution of domain sizes, connecting the fitted exponent to the actual magnetic puddle landscape.
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 paper reports time-resolved measurements of current-induced magnetization switching in 8 nm V-doped (Bi,Sb)2Te3 quantum anomalous Hall devices. Repeated voltage pulses progressively reverse the Hall resistance with a stretched-exponential time dependence, and the extracted switching time tsw varies by about nine orders of magnitude with pulse amplitude and by about four orders with magnetic field. The authors propose that Joule heating raises the electron temperature Te, with Te proportional to V^(2/alpha) from an assumed electron-phonon cooling law, and that switching is thermally activated with tsw = t0 exp[A(H)/V^(2/alpha)]. The field dependence is modeled as E(H) = E0(1 - H/Ha)^n. They further argue that polarity independence and the absence of in-plane-field switching rule out spin-transfer torque as the dominant mechanism. The central claim is that reversal is thermally activated by Joule heating in a disordered magnetic landscape.

Significance. If the thermal-activation interpretation is correct, the paper gives an important dynamical fingerprint of the disordered magnetic landscape in QAH systems and suggests a route to heat-mediated control of chiral edge states. The strengths include the wide dynamic range of the measurements, the stroboscopic protocol validated by pulse-width and waiting-time independence, the polarity and field controls that disfavor spin-transfer torque, and the availability of supporting data and code from Zenodo. The principal weakness is that the quantitative temperature-voltage relation is inferred from a model rather than measured: the electron temperature during pulses is not directly probed, and the manuscript's own supplementary text acknowledges strong approximations. The claim is therefore plausible and well-supported phenomenologically, but the central quantitative link still needs strengthening.

major comments (3)
  1. [Model for heat-induced reversal; Eq. tsw = t0 exp(A/V^(2/alpha))] The quantitative link between pulse voltage and electron temperature is assumed rather than measured. The model sets Pdiss proportional to V^2 and Pout = Sigma(Te^alpha - Tp^alpha), with alpha calibrated from DC sub-Kelvin thermometry (Table S3), and then extrapolates to pulsed conditions where Te exceeds 10 K. Since the paper's own data (Fig. S7) show Rxx varying by orders of magnitude with applied power, the dissipated power should be V^2/R(Te), and any temperature dependence of R or a change in the cooling exponent at high Te modifies the predicted scaling Te proportional to V^(2/alpha). This is load-bearing because the extracted A(H) values and the thermal-activation interpretation rely on that scaling. Direct in-pulse determination of Te, or at least a demonstration that the DC-calibrated alpha and the constant-resistance approximation hold for Te > 10 K, is needed.
  2. [Experimental observations; Fig. 4b] The collapse in Fig. 4b rescales tsw/t0 by the fitted ratio A(H)/A(H0), where t0 and A(H) are free parameters of the same Arrhenius fits to tsw(V). Therefore the collapse is a consistency check of the assumed functional form rather than an independent verification of the field dependence of the barrier. The field-dependence analysis similarly fixes n = 3 and fits H0 from the same tsw(H) data, with n = 2-4 also acceptable. As a result, the data are consistent with thermal activation but do not uniquely establish it; an exponential dependence on an inverse power of V would also fit the limited voltage range. Please state explicitly which predictions are falsifiable and compare the thermal-activation model quantitatively with non-thermal alternatives.
  3. [Tables S1 and S2] The attempt time t0 is fitted separately in the voltage-dependence and field-dependence analyses, yielding values that differ by an order of magnitude for the same sample and comparable conditions: for Sample B at 0.6 T, Table S1 gives t0 = 1.2 ns, while Table S2 at 6 V gives t0 = 11.5 ns. Since t0 is a physical attempt time, it should be common across both dependencies for a given sample and field. The discrepancy weakens the quantitative consistency of the Arrhenius model and should either be resolved by a global fit or justified explicitly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Experimental setup] Page 2 states that transport measurements were 'performed 20 mK'; the word 'at' is missing before the temperature.
  2. [Experimental setup] Page 2 contains a duplicated phrase: 'we focus on this article in two main devices' should read 'we focus on two main devices'.
  3. [Fig. 3d] The horizontal axis label in Fig. 3d appears as '0H' rather than 'mu0 H'; please correct the typographical rendering.
  4. [Supplementary, Fig. S4] The stretched-exponential fits for Sample B deviate systematically from the data on short timescales. Please provide fit-quality measures or a more detailed discussion of why tsw remains correctly extracted despite these deviations.
  5. [Magnetization dynamics] The statement that Rxy is proportional to M 'following the law of the classical anomalous Hall effect' is a simplifying assumption; please add a reference or caveat for its validity in a strongly disordered QAH system.
  6. [Model for heat-induced reversal] Please clarify whether V in the expressions Pdiss proportional to V^2 and A/V^(2/alpha) is the generator output amplitude, the voltage across the sample, or the voltage after line attenuation, since the paper notes that absolute pulse amplitude is not relevant to the analysis.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Fig. 4b collapse is generated by the fitted A(H) and t0 values, making it a consistency restatement; the voltage scaling itself is partly constrained by independently calibrated alpha, so the circularity is only partial.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text, section 'Experimental observations', paragraph discussing Fig. 4b and the reference field H0.]
    "To better confirm the Arrhenius law, we choose a reference field µ0|H0| = 600 mT, and rescale the normalized time tsw/t0 in each data set by the ratio A(H)/A(H0). In doing so, all data sets fall on a single curve, as shown on Fig.4b, further strengthening a scenario based on thermal activation of the switching rate."

    A(H) and t0 are free fit parameters obtained from the very same tsw(V) data that the collapse is supposed to confirm (Table S1: t0 = 1.7, 0.8, 1.2, 5.9, 8.7 ns; A = 19.1, 27.7, 21.7, 12.1, 9.3 V^(2/alpha) for the five data sets). Rescaling each data set by its fitted t0 and by the fitted ratio A(H)/A(H0) maps each individually fitted Arrhenius curve onto the reference curve; the collapse therefore follows from the fits rather than independently verifying the model. Moreover, the field dependence of A(H) is not predicted: tsw(H) is fitted separately with n fixed to 3 and H0 and B as free parameters (Table S2). Thus the 'further strengthening' claim is a restatement of the fit quality, not an independent check.

full rationale

The central thermal-activation mechanism is not circular in the strictest sense: alpha is obtained from separate DC measurements of Rxx(T) and Rxx(IDC) (Table S3, alpha = 2.7 +/- 0.2 for Sample A and 3.8 +/- 0.2 for Sample B), and the tsw(V) data are then compared with tsw = t0 exp(A/V^(2/alpha)) with alpha fixed, so the voltage scaling is independently constrained. The main circular element is the Fig. 4b collapse, which rescales data with the same fitted A(H) and t0 values used to fit those data, making the collapse a consistency replot rather than a prediction. The field dependence is likewise fitted with free parameters (n fixed, H0 and B free), so the assumed E(H) = E0(1 - H/Ha)^n form is not independently tested. The paper itself candidly lists the model's approximations in the Supplementary section 'Hypotheses and approximations', including the phenomenological two-parameter heat model, the ambiguity in Te, the assumption of uniform temperatures, and the large uncertainty in alpha; that transparency reduces the concern of hidden circularity. The extrapolation of the DC-calibrated cooling law from T <= 2 K to Te > 10 K is an unmeasured correctness risk and a possible alternative explanation, but it is not circularity. Reference [25] is a same-group citation for the electron-phonon power law, but it is accompanied by independent refs [26-28], so it is not load-bearing. Overall score 4: one fitted-parameter confirmation presented as strengthening, while the rest of the derivation retains independent quantitative content.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The empirical content rests on a number of fitted parameters (t0, A, B, H0, n, beta) and on physical assumptions (Arrhenius law, uniform temperatures, electron-phonon power law, Rxy proportional to M) that are plausible but not directly measured under pulse conditions. The ledger shows that the thermal mechanism is a fitted model with an independent alpha calibration rather than a parameter-free derivation.

free parameters (8)
  • t0 (Arrhenius attempt time) = 0.8 to 13.8 ns across datasets
    Fit parameter in tsw = t0 exp(A / V^(2/alpha)) and in the field-dependent fits; absorbs the unknown pre-exponential factor of the thermal switching rate.
  • A(H) (voltage-activation coefficient) = 9.3 to 27.7 V^(2/alpha)
    Fitted per magnetic field dataset; encodes the energy barrier divided by the heating conversion factor, so it is not independently derived.
  • B(V) (field-activation coefficient) = 22.90 to 32.10
    Fitted per amplitude dataset in tsw(H) = t0 exp(B(1 - H/H0)^n).
  • H0 (anisotropy field) = 1.07 to 1.64 T
    Fitted in the field-dependent Arrhenius fits; the paper acknowledges large uncertainty in this parameter.
  • n (field exponent) = fixed to 3, acceptable range 2 to 4
    Chosen rather than determined by the data; it directly sets the shape of E(H) and the field dependence of tsw.
  • beta (stretching exponent) = about 0.4 to 0.8
    Fitted per Rxy(t) curve to extract tsw and to support the disordered-domain picture; it is a data-description parameter rather than a prediction.
  • alpha (electron-phonon exponent) = 2.7 +/- 0.2 (Sample A), 3.8 +/- 0.2 (Sample B)
    Fitted from DC Rxx(T) and Rxx(I) calibration curves; independent of the switching data but still an empirical parameter of the thermal model.
  • Sigma (electron-phonon coupling constant) = 2.4e-11 W/K^alpha (Sample A), 4.2e-10 W/K^alpha (Sample B)
    Fitted in the same DC calibration; used to estimate Te above 10 K during pulses.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Rxy is proportional to the magnetization (classical anomalous Hall law).
    Used to interpret Rxy dynamics as magnetization dynamics; the authors note this holds 'to lowest order' in the section 'Magnetization dynamics'.
  • domain assumption Electron-phonon cooling follows Pout = Sigma(Te^alpha - Tp^alpha).
    Imported from low-temperature semiconductor literature (Refs 25-28); alpha is calibrated per sample, but the functional form is assumed in the model.
  • domain assumption Joule power dissipated is proportional to V^2 and the electron bath equilibrates immediately to Te.
    Assumed in 'Model for heat-induced reversal'; ignores transient heating and non-uniform dissipation near contacts.
  • ad hoc to paper Te and Tp are uniform over the whole sample.
    Listed as a simplification in the Supplementary 'Hypotheses and approximations'; could be violated near contacts and device corners.
  • ad hoc to paper The reversal energy barrier has the form E(H) = E0(1 - H/Ha)^n.
    Assumed in the model; n is fixed to 3 with acceptable range 2 to 4 and Ha is fit, so the form is not derived from a microscopic theory.
  • domain assumption Single-domain switching time obeys the Arrhenius law tsw = t0 exp(E(H)/(kB Te)).
    Core of the thermal model; assumed rather than derived in 'Model for heat-induced reversal'.
  • domain assumption Magnetization reversal proceeds via independent small domains with a broad distribution of switching times.
    Inferred from the stretched-exponential fits and prior disorder studies, but not directly imaged in this work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamics of current-induced switching in the quantum anomalous Hall effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K2RWCXZI

@misc{pith2026250719665,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamics of current-induced switching in the quantum anomalous Hall effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K2RWCXZI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19665}
}
read the original abstract

Ferromagnetic topological insulators in the quantum anomalous Hall (QAH) regime host chiral, dissipationless edge states whose propagation direction is determined by the internal magnetization. Under suitable conditions, a strong electrical bias can induce magnetization reversal, and thus flip the propagation direction. In this work, we perform time-resolved measurements to investigate the switching dynamics. Our results reveal characteristics consistent with a disordered magnetic landscape and demonstrate that the reversal process is thermally activated, driven by Joule heating during the current pulse. The understanding of the magnetization dynamics in QAH systems opens pathways for local, controlled manipulation of chiral edge states via thermal effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19665 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Experimental setup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Dynamics of the resistances [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Voltage and magnetic field dependencies: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Model for thermally activated switching: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    \ Chang , author J

    author author C.-Z. \ Chang , author J. Zhang , author X. Feng , author J. Shen , author Z. Zhang , author M. Guo , author K. Li , author Y. Ou , author P. Wei , author L.-L. \ Wang , author Z.-Q. \ Ji , author Y. Feng , author S. Ji , author X. Chen , author J. Jia , author X. Dai , author Z. Fang , author S.-C. \ Zhang , author K. He , author Y. Wang , ...

    doi:10.1126/science.1234414

  2. [2]

    \ Chang , author W

    author author C.-Z. \ Chang , author W. Zhao , author D. Y. \ Kim , author H. Zhang , author B. A. \ Assaf , author D. Heiman , author S.-C. \ Zhang , author C. Liu , author M. H. W. \ Chan ,\ and\ author J. S. \ Moodera ,\ https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4204 journal journal Nature Materials \ volume 14 ,\ pages 473 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1038/nmat4204

  3. [3]

    Yu , author W

    author author R. Yu , author W. Zhang , author H.-J. \ Zhang , author S.-C. \ Zhang , author X. Dai ,\ and\ author Z. Fang ,\ https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1187485 journal journal Science \ volume 329 ,\ pages 61 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1126/science.1187485

  4. [4]

    author author L. A. \ Martinez , author G. Qiu , author P. Deng , author P. Zhang , author K. G. \ Ray , author L. Tai , author M.-T. \ Wei , author H. He , author K. L. \ Wang , author J. L. \ DuBois ,\ and\ author D.-X. \ Qu ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.013081 journal journal Phys. Rev. Res. \ volume 6 ,\ pages 013081 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.013081

  5. [5]

    R\"oper , author H

    author author T. R\"oper , author H. Thomas , author D. Rosenbach , author A. Uday , author G. Lippertz , author A. Denis , author P. Morfin , author A. A. \ Taskin , author Y. Ando ,\ and\ author E. Bocquillon ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.110.L161403 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 110 ,\ pages L161403 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.110.l161403

  6. [6]

    Uday , author G

    author author A. Uday , author G. Lippertz , author K. Moors , author H. F. \ Legg , author R. Joris , author A. Bliesener , author L. M. C. \ Pereira , author A. A. \ Taskin ,\ and\ author Y. Ando ,\ https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-024-02574-1 journal journal Nature Physics \ volume 20 ,\ pages 1589 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02574-1

  7. [7]

    author author A. J. \ Bestwick , author E. J. \ Fox , author X. Kou , author L. Pan , author K. L. \ Wang ,\ and\ author D. Goldhaber-Gordon ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.187201 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 114 ,\ pages 187201 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.187201

  8. [8]

    Götz , author K

    author author M. Götz , author K. M. \ Fijalkowski , author E. Pesel , author M. Hartl , author S. Schreyeck , author M. Winnerlein , author S. Grauer , author H. Scherer , author K. Brunner , author C. Gould , author F. J. \ Ahlers ,\ and\ author L. W. \ Molenkamp ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5009718 journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 112 ,...

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5009718

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    author author E. J. \ Fox , author I. T. \ Rosen , author Y. Yang , author G. R. \ Jones , author R. E. \ Elmquist , author X. Kou , author L. Pan , author K. L. \ Wang ,\ and\ author D. Goldhaber-Gordon ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.075145 journal journal Phys. Rev. ...

    doi

  2. [10]

    author author K. M. \ Fijalkowski , author N. Liu , author M. Klement , author S. Schreyeck , author K. Brunner , author C. Gould ,\ and\ author L. W. \ Molenkamp ,\ journal journal Nature Electronics \ https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-024-01156-6 10.1038/s41928-024-01156-6 ( ye...

    doi

  3. [11]

    Viola \ and\ author D

    author author G. Viola \ and\ author D. P. \ DiVincenzo ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.4.021019 journal journal Physical Review X \ volume 4 ,\ pages 021019 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    author author A. C. \ Mahoney , author J. I. \ Colless , author L. Peeters , author S. J. \ Pauka , author E. J. \ Fox , author X. Kou , author L. Pan , author K. L. \ Wang , author D. Goldhaber-Gordon ,\ and\ author D. J. \ Reilly ,\ https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01984-5...

    doi

  5. [13]

    Beenakker , author P

    author author C. Beenakker , author P. Baireuther , author Y. Herasymenko , author I. Adagideli , author L. Wang ,\ and\ author A. Akhmerov ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.146803 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 122 ,\ pages 146803 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    doi

  6. [14]

    Yasuda , author M

    author author K. Yasuda , author M. Mogi , author R. Yoshimi , author A. Tsukazaki , author K. S. \ Takahashi , author M. Kawasaki , author F. Kagawa ,\ and\ author Y. Tokura ,\ https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan5991 journal journal Science \ volume 358 ,\ pages 1311 ( year 2...

    doi

  7. [15]

    author author I. T. \ Rosen , author E. J. \ Fox , author X. F. \ Kou , author L. Pan , author K. L. \ Wang ,\ and\ author D. Goldhaber-Gordon ,\ journal journal Npj Quantum Materials \ volume 2 ,\ https://doi.org/10.1038/s41535-017-0073-0 10.1038/s41535-017-0073-0 ( year 2017...

    doi

  8. [16]

    Yuan , author L

    author author W. Yuan , author L. J. \ Zhou , author K. Yang , author Y. F. \ Zhao , author R. Zhang , author Z. Yan , author D. Zhuo , author R. Mei , author Y. Wang , author H. Yi , author M. H. W. \ Chan , author M. Kayyalha , author C. X. \ Liu ,\ and\ author C. Z. \ Chang...

    doi

  9. [17]

    Zimmermann , author J

    author author E. Zimmermann , author J. Teller , author M. Schleenvoigt , author G. Behner , author P. Schüffelgen , author H. Lüth , author D. Grützmacher ,\ and\ author T. Schäpers ,\ journal journal Physical Review Materials \ volume 8 ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevMate...

    doi

  10. [18]

    ******* NoStop

    @noop note See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher]. ******* NoStop

  11. [19]

    note Alternatively, when the RF line is equipped with bias-tee limiting the bandwidth, we also used trains of multiple short pulses. Stop

  12. [20]

    author author J. C. \ Phillips ,\ https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/59/9/003 journal journal Reports on Progress in Physics \ volume 59 ,\ pages 1133 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

    1996 doi

  13. [21]

    Xi , author K.-Z

    author author H. Xi , author K.-Z. \ Gao , author J. Ouyang , author Y. Shi ,\ and\ author Y. Yang ,\ journal journal Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter \ volume 20 ,\ https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/20/29/295220 10.1088/0953-8984/20/29/295220 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    doi

  14. [22]

    Lucas , author N

    author author I. Lucas , author N. Marcano , author T. Prokscha , author C. Magen , author R. Corcuera , author L. Morellon , author J. M. \ De Teresa , author M. R. \ Ibarra ,\ and\ author P. A. \ Algarabel ,\ journal journal Nanomaterials (Basel) \ volume 12 ,\ https://doi.o...

    doi

  15. [23]

    Lee , author C

    author author I. Lee , author C. K. \ Kim , author J. Lee , author S. J. L. \ Billinge , author R. Zhong , author J. A. \ Schneeloch , author T. Liu , author T. Valla , author J. M. \ Tranquada , author G. Gu ,\ and\ author J. C. S. \ Davis ,\ @noop journal journal Proceedings...

    2015

  16. [24]

    Lippertz , author A

    author author G. Lippertz , author A. Bliesener , author A. Uday , author L. M. C. \ Pereira , author A. A. \ Taskin ,\ and\ author Y. Ando ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.106.045419 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 106 ,\ pages 045419 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    doi

  17. [25]

    Röper , author D

    author author T. Röper , author D. Rosenbach , author A. Rosch , author A. Taskin , author Y. Ando ,\ and\ author E. Bocquillon ,\ https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:2505.23156 arXiv:arXiv:2505.23156 [cond-mat.mes-hall] ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Jezouin , author F

    author author S. Jezouin , author F. D. \ Parmentier , author A. Anthore , author U. Gennser , author A. Cavanna , author Y. Jin ,\ and\ author F. Pierre ,\ https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241912 journal journal Science \ volume 342 ,\ pages 601 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    doi

  19. [27]

    Le Breton , author R

    author author G. Le Breton , author R. Delagrange , author Y. Hong , author M. Garg , author K. Watanabe , author T. Taniguchi , author R. Ribeiro-Palau , author P. Roulleau , author P. Roche ,\ and\ author F. D. \ Parmentier ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.116803 j...

    doi

  20. [28]

    author author G. M. \ Ferguson , author R. Xiao , author A. R. \ Richardella , author A. Kaczmarek , author N. Samarth ,\ and\ author K. C. \ Nowack ,\ https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.02633 arXiv:2503.02633 [cond-mat.mes-hall] ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Rupp \ and\ author E

    author author A. Rupp \ and\ author E. Bocquillon ,\ https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16413030 10.5281/zenodo.16413030 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025 doi

Pith tools

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