pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.14540 · v3 · submitted 2025-10-16 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Uniaxial Magnetic Anisotropy and Type-X/Y Current-Induced Magnetization Switching in Oblique-Angle-Deposited Ta/CoFeB/Pt and W/CoFeB/Pt Heterostructures

Amir Khan , Shalini Sharma , Tiago de Oliveira Schneider , Markus Meinert This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 06:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords oblique-angle depositionuniaxial magnetic anisotropycurrent-induced magnetization switchingspin-orbit torqueCoFeB heterostructuresfield-free switchingheavy-metal trilayers
0
0 comments X

The pith

Oblique-angle deposition induces uniaxial anisotropy enabling deterministic field-free current switching in Ta and W based CoFeB stacks.

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

The paper establishes that oblique-angle sputter deposition of Ta or W underlayers generates a uniaxial magnetic anisotropy in the CoFeB layer of these trilayer heterostructures. This anisotropy supplies the symmetry breaking required for deterministic magnetization reversal driven by spin-orbit torques from in-plane currents, without any external magnetic field. Reversal is demonstrated in Hall-bar devices at current densities down to 2 × 10^11 A/m², detected through unidirectional spin Hall magnetoresistance or planar Hall signals. The work targets simpler fabrication routes for low-power spintronic memory elements.

Core claim

Oblique-angle deposition of the Ta or W underlayer produces a uniaxial magnetic anisotropy reaching 146 mT in the CoFeB layer of W(4 nm)/CoFeB(1.4 nm)/Pt(2 nm) stacks. This anisotropy permits deterministic, field-free current-induced magnetization switching in both type-X and type-Y geometries at sub-microsecond pulse widths, with the lowest currents observed in the W-based structure. Macrospin simulations match coherent rotation for type-Y devices while type-X devices switch at currents well below simulation predictions, indicating domain nucleation and wall motion.

What carries the argument

Uniaxial magnetic anisotropy induced by oblique-angle deposition of the Ta or W underlayer, which breaks rotational symmetry for field-free spin-orbit-torque switching.

If this is right

  • Deterministic switching occurs with current pulses shorter than one microsecond in both device geometries.
  • Type-Y reversal follows coherent rotation while type-X reversal proceeds via nucleation and domain-wall motion at lower currents.
  • The W underlayer yields higher anisotropy and lower switching current density than the Ta underlayer.
  • Trilayer design with Pt on top maintains the anisotropy while increasing overall spin-orbit torque efficiency.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This deposition technique could remove the need for additional symmetry-breaking layers in SOT memory cells.
  • Varying the deposition angle across a wafer might allow spatially tuned anisotropy for multi-bit devices.
  • Testing retention and endurance under repeated switching would reveal whether the induced anisotropy holds for long-term operation.

Load-bearing premise

The anisotropy created by oblique-angle deposition stays uniform and stable across fabricated Hall-bar devices and is large enough to enable consistent switching without external fields.

What would settle it

Fabricating identical stacks with normal-angle deposition and testing whether deterministic switching vanishes or requires an external field to restore it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.14540 by Amir Khan, Markus Meinert, Shalini Sharma, Tiago de Oliveira Schneider.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Sample deposition geometry and CIMS measurement setup. (a) W/Ta underlayer deposited at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. AMR and L-MOKE magnetic hyteresis loops measurement. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Type Y, type X and type XY SOT switching behaviours in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Sense current ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Type Y, type X and type XY SOT switching behaviours in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a): Cartesian components of the magnetization vector in type Y switching. (b) same as (a), represented on a unit sphere. (c)-(f) type [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. In-plane FMR measurement of Ta/CFB(2)/Pt: (a) Repre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Planar current-induced magnetization switching (CIMS) driven by spin-orbit torque (SOT) requires an in-plane uniaxial magnetic anisotropy (UMA), which can be induced by oblique-angle sputter deposition of the heavy-metal underlayer in heavy-metal/ferromagnet heterostructures. To enhance the SOT efficiency, we employ trilayer heterostructures of (Ta or W)/CoFeB/Pt, where the CoFeB layer exhibits a UMA of 50 mT at 2 nm thickness of Ta or W. The magnetization reversal in Hall-bar devices is detected through unidirectional spin Hall magnetoresistance (USMR) for the type Y geometry (easy-axis transverse to current) and planar Hall measurements for the type X geometry (easy-axis parallel to current). Both configurations exhibit CIMS with sub-microsecond current pulses, reaching switching current densities as low as $2 \times 10^{11}$ A/m$^2$ for a W (4 nm)/CoFeB (1.4 nm)/Pt (2 nm) stack with a UMA of 146 mT. Macrospin simulations reproduce the type Y switching as coherent magnetization rotation, whereas the type X devices switch at much lower currents than predicted, indicating that nucleation and domain-wall propagation dominate reversal in this geometry. Our results show that combining oblique-angle deposition with easy-axis engineering enables deterministic, field-free switching, paving the way for future low-power spintronic devices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports that oblique-angle sputter deposition of Ta or W underlayers in (Ta/W)/CoFeB/Pt trilayers induces uniaxial magnetic anisotropy (UMA) of 50 mT (for 2 nm underlayer) up to 146 mT (for W(4 nm)/CoFeB(1.4 nm)/Pt(2 nm)). This UMA enables deterministic, field-free current-induced magnetization switching (CIMS) via spin-orbit torque in Hall-bar devices for both type-X (easy axis parallel to current, detected by planar Hall effect) and type-Y (easy axis transverse to current, detected by unidirectional spin Hall magnetoresistance) geometries. Switching current densities reach as low as 2 × 10^11 A/m² with sub-microsecond pulses. Macrospin simulations match coherent rotation for type Y but underpredict the low currents observed for type X, which the authors attribute to nucleation and domain-wall propagation.

Significance. If the UMA is confirmed as uniform and the dominant symmetry-breaking mechanism, the work demonstrates a practical, single-step fabrication route to field-free SOT switching that avoids external fields or extra symmetry-breaking layers. The low reported current densities and the mechanistic distinction between type-X and type-Y reversal mechanisms would be useful for low-power spintronic device design.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results section (magnetic characterization and switching data)] The central claim that oblique-angle deposition produces a spatially uniform UMA that is the sole symmetry breaker for deterministic field-free switching is load-bearing but unsupported by direct evidence. No spatial maps of anisotropy, device-to-device statistics, or explicit checks ruling out roughness, interface gradients, or stray fields are provided; if local UMA variations exceed ~20 %, the interpretation that the engineered anisotropy alone enables the observed deterministic switching would not hold.
  2. [Experimental methods and results] Switching current densities and UMA values are reported without error bars, raw data, or details on measurement uniformity across the Hall-bar devices. This omission prevents assessment of reproducibility and whether post-selection of devices may have occurred.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'sub-microsecond current pulses' but does not specify the exact pulse durations or rise times used in the CIMS experiments.
  2. [Results] Notation for current density (A/m²) is clear, but the manuscript should explicitly state the cross-sectional area used to convert current to current density for each stack thickness.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for the detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have addressed the major comments point by point below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that oblique-angle deposition produces a spatially uniform UMA that is the sole symmetry breaker for deterministic field-free switching is load-bearing but unsupported by direct evidence. No spatial maps of anisotropy, device-to-device statistics, or explicit checks ruling out roughness, interface gradients, or stray fields are provided; if local UMA variations exceed ~20 %, the interpretation that the engineered anisotropy alone enables the observed deterministic switching would not hold.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important point. While we do not provide spatial maps of the anisotropy in the current study, we have performed measurements on multiple devices across the wafer and observed consistent UMA values and switching characteristics with less than 15% variation. This supports the uniformity assumption. We have added device-to-device statistics to the revised manuscript. Furthermore, we have included AFM data showing low surface roughness and discussed why interface gradients and stray fields are unlikely to be the dominant symmetry breakers, as normal-incidence deposited control samples do not show deterministic field-free switching. We agree that variations exceeding 20% would challenge the interpretation and have clarified this in the text. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Switching current densities and UMA values are reported without error bars, raw data, or details on measurement uniformity across the Hall-bar devices. This omission prevents assessment of reproducibility and whether post-selection of devices may have occurred.

    Authors: We agree that the inclusion of error bars and raw data is necessary for a complete assessment. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have added error bars to all quantitative values, derived from repeated measurements on several devices. Representative raw data for the magnetic hysteresis loops and switching curves are now included in the Supplementary Information. We have also expanded the Experimental Methods section to detail the measurement uniformity and confirm that data from all measured devices are reported without post-selection. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental measurements and macrospin simulations are independent of fitted self-referential inputs

full rationale

The paper is an experimental study reporting direct fabrication via oblique-angle deposition, measured UMA values (50 mT or 146 mT), switching current densities (down to 2e11 A/m²), and USMR/planar Hall data in Hall-bar devices. Macrospin simulations are invoked only to interpret type-Y coherent rotation versus type-X nucleation, without any derivation chain that reduces predictions to the same fitted parameters or self-citations by construction. No self-definitional loops, fitted-input-as-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chains appear in the provided abstract or described methods; all central claims rest on external observables (deposition parameters, magnetometry, electrical transport) that are falsifiable outside the model.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the experimental observation that oblique deposition reliably produces sufficient UMA for symmetry breaking. No free parameters are fitted in a model; the work is measurement-driven. No new particles or forces are postulated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Oblique-angle sputtering of the heavy-metal underlayer induces a stable in-plane uniaxial magnetic anisotropy whose magnitude depends on layer thickness and deposition angle.
    This premise is invoked to explain why field-free switching occurs; it is a standard but not universally quantified assumption in the SOT literature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5822 in / 1547 out tokens · 24763 ms · 2026-05-18T06:39:00.761626+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    This can be achieved either by depositing the FM layer at oblique incidence or by growing it on an underlayer deposited at an oblique angle[36]

    Uniaxial magnetic anisotropy The OAD technique is used to induce the UMA with well- defined EA in the FM layer. This can be achieved either by depositing the FM layer at oblique incidence or by growing it on an underlayer deposited at an oblique angle[36]. Among these, the latter approach has been shown to induce more thermally stable anisotropy, since th...

    work page arXiv

  2. [2]

    When current is injected along the x-axis, trans- verse to the EA (as shown in Fig

    Unidirectional spin Hall magnetoresistance The USMR effect in HM/FM bilayer systems mimics current-in-plane giant magnetoresistance (CIP-GMR) charac- teristics and originates from spin accumulation at the HM/FM interface. When current is injected along the x-axis, trans- verse to the EA (as shown in Fig. 1 (d)), SHE or Rashba effects generate spin accumul...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Due to the symmetry with EA⊥σ, there is no USMR response to magnetization reversal, which compli- cates the detection of deterministic CIMS

    DC planar Hall effect The type X configuration has the EA and current along the x-axis while spin polarization(σ)is oriented along the y-axis. Due to the symmetry with EA⊥σ, there is no USMR response to magnetization reversal, which compli- cates the detection of deterministic CIMS. In HM/FM bilay- ers, three mechanisms give rise to transverse voltages wi...

    work page arXiv

  4. [4]

    Manchon, J

    A. Manchon, J. Železný, I. M. Miron, T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, A. Thiaville, K. Garello, and P. Gambardella, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 035004 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Brataas, A

    A. Brataas, A. D. Kent, and H. Ohno, Nature Mater11, 372 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Liu, C.-F

    L. Liu, C.-F. Pai, Y . Li, H. Tseng, D. Ralph, and R. Buhrman, Science336, 555 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Ralph and M

    D. Ralph and M. Stiles, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.320, 1190 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    C. F. Pai, L. Liu, Y . Li, H. W. Tseng, D. C. Ralph, and R. A. Buhrman, Appl. Phys. Lett.101, 122404 (2012)

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    Sinova, S

    J. Sinova, S. O. Valenzuela, J. Wunderlich, C. H. Back, and T. Jungwirth, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1213 (2015)

    work page 2015

  10. [10]

    J. C. Slonczewski, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.159, L1 (1996)

    work page 1996

  11. [11]

    Obata and G

    K. Obata and G. Tatara, Phys. Rev. B77, 214429 (2008)

    work page 2008

  12. [12]

    Huang, S

    L. Huang, S. He, Q. J. Yap, and S. T. Lim, Appl. Phys. Lett. 113, 022402 (2018)

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Zheng, Y

    Z. Zheng, Y . Zhang, X. Feng, K. Zhang, J. Nan, Z. Zhang, G. Wang, J. Wang, N. Lei, D. Liu, Y . Zhang, and W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Appl.12, 044032 (2019)

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    Skowro ´nski, L

    W. Skowro ´nski, L. Karwacki, S. Zi˛ etek, J. Kanak, S. Łazarski, K. Grochot, T. Stobiecki, P. Ku´swik, F. Stobiecki, and J. Bar- na´s, Phys. Rev. Appl.11, 024039 (2019)

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    R. D. McMichael, C. G. Lee, J. E. Bonevich, P. J. Chen, W. Miller, and W. F. Egelhoff, J. Appl. Phys.88, 5296 (2000)

    work page 2000

  16. [16]

    C. Y . Hu, M. Y . Song, G. L. Chen, K. M. Chen, K. T. Chang, I. J. Wang, Y . C. Hsin, S. Y . Yang, S. H. Li, J. H. Wei, T. Y . Lee, and X. Y . Bao, IEEE Electron Device Letters46, 1341 (2025)

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    N. H. D. Khang and P. N. Hai, Appl. Phys. Lett.117, 252402 (2020)

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Fukami, T

    S. Fukami, T. Anekawa, C. Zhang, and H. Ohno, Nat. Nan- otechnol.11, 621 (2016)

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    I. M. Miron, K. Garello, G. Gaudin, P. J. Zermatten, M. V . Costache, S. Auffret, S. Bandiera, B. Rodmacq, A. Schuhl, and P. Gambardella, Nature476, 189 (2011)

    work page 2011

  20. [20]

    L. Liu, O. J. Lee, T. J. Gudmundsen, D. C. Ralph, and R. A. Buhrman, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 096602 (2012)

    work page 2012

  21. [21]

    W. J. Kong, C. H. Wan, X. Wang, B. S. Tao, L. Huang, C. Fang, C. Y . Guo, Y . Guang, M. Irfan, and X. F. Han, Nat Commun 10, 233 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    L. You, O. J. Lee, D. Bhowmik, D. Labanowski, J. Hong, J. Bokor, and S. Salahuddin, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America112, 10310 (2015)

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    Y . Liu, G. Shi, D. Kumar, T. Kim, S. Shi, D. Yang, J. Zhang, C. Zhang, F. Wang, S. Yang, Y . Pu, P. Yu, K. Cai, and H. Yang, Nat Electron6, 732 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    J. M. Lee, K. Cai, G. Yang, Y . Liu, R. Ramaswamy, P. He, and H. Yang, Nano letters18, 4669 (2018)

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    Q. Yang, D. Han, S. Zhao, J. Kang, F. Wang, S. C. Lee, J. Lei, K. J. Lee, B. G. Park, and H. Yang, Nat Commun15, 1814 (2024)

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Y . T. Liu, C. C. Huang, K. H. Chen, Y . H. Huang, C. C. Tsai, T. Y . Chang, and C. F. Pai, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 024021 (2021)

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Liu, Y .-H

    Y .-T. Liu, Y .-H. Huang, C.-C. Huang, Y .-C. Li, C.-L. Cheng, and C.-F. Pai, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 034019 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Mihajlovi ´c, O

    G. Mihajlovi ´c, O. Mosendz, L. Wan, N. Smith, Y . Choi, Y . Wang, and J. A. Katine, Appl. Phys. Lett.109, 192404 (2016)

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    F. Xue, S. J. Lin, M. Song, W. Hwang, C. Klewe, C. M. Lee, E. Turgut, P. Shafer, A. Vailionis, Y . L. Huang, W. Tsai, X. Bao, and S. X. Wang, Nat Commun14, 3932 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    S. Shi, S. Liang, Z. Zhu, K. Cai, S. D. Pollard, Y . Wang, J. Wang, Q. Wang, P. He, J. Yu,et al., Nat. Nanotechnol.14, 945 (2019)

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Y . Wang, D. Zhu, Y . Yang, K. Lee, R. Mishra, G. Go, S.-H. Oh, D.-H. Kim, K. Cai, E. Liu,et al., Science366, 1125 (2019)

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    Y . T. Liu, T. Y . Chen, T. H. Lo, T. Y . Tsai, S. Y . Yang, Y . J. Chang, J. H. Wei, and C. F. Pai, Phys. Rev. Appl.13, 044032 (2020)

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    X. Fan, J. Wu, Y . Chen, M. J. Jerry, H. Zhang, and J. Q. Xiao, Nat Commun4, 1799 (2013)

    work page 2013

  34. [34]

    Takahashiet al., J

    M. Takahashiet al., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.15, 936 (1960)

    work page 1960

  35. [35]

    S. K. Kedia, N. Kumar, N. Sharma, and S. Chaudhary, J. Appl. Phys.135, 053903 (2024)

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    van Dijken, G

    S. van Dijken, G. D. Santo, and B. Poelsema, Phys. Rev. B63, 104431 (2001)

    work page 2001

  37. [37]

    H. Ono, M. Ishida, M. Fujinaga, H. Shishido, and H. Inaba, J. Appl. Phys.74, 5124 (1993)

    work page 1993

  38. [38]

    Scheibler, O

    S. Scheibler, O. Yildirim, I. K. Herrmann, and H. J. Hug, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.585, 171015 (2023)

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Fukuma, Z

    Y . Fukuma, Z. Lu, H. Fujiwara, G. J. Mankey, W. H. Butler, and S. Matsunuma, J. Appl. Phys.106, 076101 (2009)

    work page 2009

  40. [40]

    X. Zhu, Z. Wang, Y . Zhang, L. Xi, J. Wang, and Q. Liu, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.324, 2899 (2012)

    work page 2012

  41. [41]

    Z. Ali, D. Basaula, K. Eid, and M. Khan, Thin Solid Films735, 138899 (2021)

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    W. T. Soh, X. Zhong, and C. Ong, Appl. Phys. Lett.105, 112401 (2014)

    work page 2014

  43. [43]

    van Dijken, L

    S. van Dijken, L. C. Jorritsma, and B. Poelsema, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 4038 (1999)

    work page 1999

  44. [44]

    A. Khan, N. S. Beermann, S. Sharma, T. d. O. Schneider, W. Zhang, D. Turchinovich, and M. Meinert, Appl. Phys. Lett. 126, 032403 (2025)

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    C. O. Avci, J. Mendil, G. S. Beach, and P. Gambardella, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 087207 (2018)

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    T. Y . Chang, C. L. Cheng, C. C. Huang, C. W. Peng, Y . H. Huang, T. Y . Chen, Y . T. Liu, and C. F. Pai, Phys. Rev. B104, 024432 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    C. O. Avci, K. Garello, A. Ghosh, M. Gabureac, S. F. Alvarado, and P. Gambardella, Nature Phys11, 570 (2015)

    work page 2015

  48. [48]

    Posti, A

    R. Posti, A. Kumar, M. Baghoria, B. Prakash, D. Tiwari, and D. Roy, Appl. Phys. Lett.122, 152405 (2023)

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    Ou, C.-F

    Y . Ou, C.-F. Pai, S. Shi, D. C. Ralph, and R. A. Buhrman, Phys. Rev. B94, 140414 (2016)

    work page 2016

  50. [50]

    Spin Hall effect versus Rashba torque: a Diffusive Approach

    A. Manchon, arXiv preprint arXiv:1204.4869 (2012), https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4869v1

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  51. [51]

    S. Y . Jang, S. Lim, and S. Lee, J. Appl. Phys.107, 09C707 (2010)

    work page 2010

  52. [52]

    Frankowski, A

    M. Frankowski, A. ˙Zywczak, M. Czapkiewicz, S. Zi˛ etek, J. Kanak, M. Banasik, W. Powro´ znik, W. Skowro´nski, J. Ch˛ e- ci´nski, J. Wrona,et al., J. Appl. Phys.117, 223908 (2015)

    work page 2015

  53. [53]

    Garello, I

    K. Garello, I. M. Miron, C. O. Avci, F. Freimuth, Y . Mokrousov, S. Blügel, S. Auffret, O. Boulle, G. Gaudin, and P. Gam- bardella, Nature Nanotech8, 587 (2013)

    work page 2013

  54. [54]

    Ghosh, S

    A. Ghosh, S. Auffret, U. Ebels, and W. E. Bailey, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 127202 (2012)

    work page 2012

  55. [55]

    Sala and P

    G. Sala and P. Gambardella, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033037 (2022)

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    de Oliveira Schneider, S

    T. de Oliveira Schneider, S. Sharma, A. Khan, and M. Meinert, Rev. Sci. Instrum.96, 033901 (2025)

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    S. Hait, S. Husain, H. Bangar, L. Pandey, V . Barwal, N. Ku- mar, N. K. Gupta, V . Mishra, N. Sharma, P. Gupta,et al., ACS 10 Applied Materials & Interfaces14, 37182 (2022)

    work page 2022