Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

High temperature ferromagnetism in epitaxial monolayers of Co-doped Fe5GeTe2

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-08 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Epitaxial Co-doped Fe5GeTe2 monolayers stay ferromagnetic up to about 200 K, with Co raising the Curie temperature by boosting neighboring iron moments and intralayer exchange.

desk verdict Epitaxial Co-doped Fe5GeTe2 monolayers claim FM to ~200 K with multilayers above RT and a coherent XMCD/DFT Co mechanism; the load-bearing question is continuous single-layer morphology. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05962 v1 pith:EMFQ35NO submitted 2026-07-07 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Jules Courtin (SPINTEC) , Fatima Ibrahim (SPINTEC) , Davide Benettin (SPINTEC) , Djordje Dosenovic (MEM) , Roberto Sant (ESRF) , Pâmella Vasconcelos Borges Pinho (ESRF) , Vincent Polewczyk (SPINTEC) , Alain Marty (SPINTEC)
show 11 more authors
Isabelle G de Moraes (SPINTEC) Matthieu Jamet (SPINTEC) Denis Jalabert (DRF (CEA) CEA) Fadi Choueikani (SSOLEIL) Philippe Ohresser (SSOLEIL) N. B. Brookes (ESRF) Hanako Okuno (MEM) Mairbek Chshiev (SPINTEC IUF) Frédéric Bonell (SPINTEC)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 75.70.Ak75.50.Cc81.15.Hi75.30.Et
keywords Fe5GeTe2cobaltdopingtwo-dimensionalferromagnetismmolecularbeamepitaxyXMCDCurietemperaturevanderWaalsmagnetsmonolayermagnetism
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

Magnetic van der Waals materials rarely keep long-range order once thinned to a single layer, and those that do usually lose it well below room temperature. This work grows Co-doped Fe5GeTe2 by molecular beam epitaxy with controlled thickness and composition, and shows that multilayers remain ferromagnetic well above room temperature while true monolayers still order ferromagnetically up to roughly 200 K. The same composition trends in Curie temperature and magnetic anisotropy appear in both monolayers and thicker films, which the authors take as evidence that the magnetism is set mainly by interactions inside each layer rather than by interlayer coupling. Element-specific X-ray magnetic circular dichroism and density-functional theory locate the cobalt on specific iron sites and show that, even though cobalt itself carries only a weak moment, it increases the moments on neighboring iron atoms and strengthens the ferromagnetic exchange within the layer. The result is a practical epitaxial route to high-temperature two-dimensional ferromagnetism whose key knobs are composition and intralayer exchange.

What carries the argument

The combination of molecular-beam-epitaxy growth that sets both thickness and Co content, element-specific X-ray magnetic circular dichroism that tracks Fe and Co moments separately, and density-functional theory that identifies the Co substitution site and the resulting enhancement of neighboring Fe moments and intralayer exchange.

What would settle it

A thickness-calibrated structural map (for example combined STEM and XPS) of the same films that shows the ferromagnetic XMCD or magneto-optical signal vanishes when only continuous monolayer regions remain and no thicker islands or secondary phases are present.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Epitaxial monolayers of Co-doped Fe5GeTe2 exhibit clear ferromagnetic ordering up to approximately 200 K. Cobalt doping raises the Curie temperature by strengthening the magnetic moments on neighboring iron atoms and enhancing the intralayer ferromagnetic exchange interactions, even though the cobalt atoms themselves carry only a weak moment.

Load-bearing premise

That the magnetic signal attributed to monolayers truly comes from continuous single-layer regions of the intended Co-doped phase rather than from thicker islands, secondary phases, or substrate and interface contributions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Curie temperature and magnetic anisotropy of Co-doped Fe5GeTe2 can be tuned by composition even in the monolayer limit because both are governed by intralayer exchange.
  • Multilayer films of the same material remain ferromagnetic well above room temperature, opening a path to ambient-temperature van der Waals spintronic stacks.
  • Cobalt substitution on specific iron sites is a general chemical handle for raising the ordering temperature of Fe5GeTe2-family monolayers without needing a large Co moment.
  • Similar epitaxial growth and doping strategies can be transferred to other metallic van der Waals magnets whose bulk Curie points already exceed room temperature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the intralayer-exchange picture is correct, further substitutional doping or alloying that further enlarges neighboring Fe moments should push monolayer Curie temperatures still closer to room temperature.
  • The same MBE platform could be used to grow heterostructures that interface the high-Tc monolayer with other two-dimensional magnets or topological materials while preserving the enhanced exchange.
  • Because the composition trends survive down to the monolayer, device-level magnetic anisotropy engineering may be possible by simple co-deposition ratios rather than by external gating or strain.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports molecular-beam-epitaxy growth of Co-doped Fe5GeTe2 with independent control of film thickness and Co composition. Multilayer films are shown to order ferromagnetically well above room temperature. Monolayer films are reported to exhibit clear ferromagnetic order up to approximately 200 K. Composition-dependent trends in Curie temperature and magnetic anisotropy are similar in monolayers and thicker films, which the authors interpret as evidence that intralayer exchange dominates. Element-specific XMCD is used to identify the Co substitution site, and DFT is used to argue that Co, despite a weak local moment, enhances neighboring Fe moments and strengthens intralayer ferromagnetic exchange, thereby raising Tc.

Significance. If the monolayer assignment and the associated magnetic response are robust, the work would constitute a substantial advance in epitaxial 2D magnets: ferromagnetic order near 200 K in a true monolayer is high relative to most reported vdW monolayers, and the combination of thickness/composition control, element-specific XMCD, and a concrete DFT mechanism would be of clear interest to the 2D magnetism and spintronics communities. The claim that composition trends are essentially thickness-independent is also useful if it holds, because it would justify focusing materials optimization on intralayer chemistry. The experimental–theoretical linkage (XMCD site identification plus DFT exchange analysis) is a genuine strength when the structural premises are secure.

major comments (3)
  1. The central claim of monolayer ferromagnetism to ~200 K is load-bearing and rests on the assertion that the measured magnetic signal originates from continuous, single-layer Co-doped Fe5GeTe2 of the intended phase rather than from minority thicker islands, secondary Co–Fe–Ge–Te phases, or substrate/interface contributions. Standard RHEED/STM/XRR characterizations establish average thickness and local crystallinity but do not by themselves quantify large-area island statistics or the areal fraction of bilayer/thicker regions that can dominate magnetometry and XMCD. The manuscript needs a quantitative morphological argument (e.g., large-area STM/AFM statistics, thickness histograms, or coverage-dependent magnetic scaling that rules out minority thicker regions) before the ~200 K monolayer Tc can be regarded as established.
  2. The inference that similar composition trends in mono- and multilayers imply dominance of intralayer over interlayer interactions is only valid if the monolayer samples are truly continuous single layers. If the “monolayer” magnetic response is weighted by thicker islands, the observed similarity of trends is expected by construction and does not independently support the intralayer-dominance conclusion. This circularity should be broken by the same morphological controls requested above, or the claim should be softened to a consistency argument rather than a demonstration.
  3. The DFT mechanism (Co strengthens neighboring Fe moments and intralayer FM exchange despite a weak Co moment) is secondary to the morphology issue but still needs tighter connection to experiment. The manuscript should state the exchange-correlation functional, any Hubbard U values and double-counting scheme, the supercell and Co concentration used, and how the computed exchange parameters map onto the observed Tc trend. Without these, the “mechanism” remains a plausible narrative rather than a falsifiable link to the measured composition dependence.
minor comments (4)
  1. Define clearly how monolayer coverage and effective thickness are extracted (XRR model, RHEED intensity oscillations, STM step counting) and report uncertainties on the quoted ~200 K ordering temperature (e.g., from Arrott or power-law fits, not only a visual estimate).
  2. Report XMCD sum-rule moments (or the reason they cannot be applied) and the measurement temperature relative to the claimed monolayer Tc so that the element-specific moments can be compared directly with the DFT site moments.
  3. Clarify whether Co concentration is measured by XPS/EDX/RBS on the same films used for magnetometry, and give the absolute composition scale and uncertainty used in the composition-trend plots.
  4. Ensure figure panels that compare mono- and multilayer composition trends use identical normalization and the same operational definition of Tc so that “similar trends” can be assessed quantitatively rather than visually.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The three major comments correctly identify the load-bearing role of the monolayer assignment, the logical dependence of the intralayer-dominance argument on that assignment, and the need for a more complete and falsifiable DFT description. We agree that the morphological case for continuous monolayers must be stated more quantitatively and that the DFT section must report the computational parameters and the mapping to the measured Tc trend. We will revise the manuscript accordingly: strengthen the morphological evidence and discussion (including quantitative STM/AFM statistics and coverage-dependent magnetic scaling from existing data), reframe the intralayer-dominance statement so that it is not circular, and expand the DFT methods and analysis. We believe these revisions address the referee’s concerns without overstating what the data support.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim of monolayer ferromagnetism to ~200 K is load-bearing and rests on the assertion that the measured magnetic signal originates from continuous, single-layer Co-doped Fe5GeTe2 of the intended phase rather than from minority thicker islands, secondary Co–Fe–Ge–Te phases, or substrate/interface contributions. Standard RHEED/STM/XRR characterizations establish average thickness and local crystallinity but do not by themselves quantify large-area island statistics or the areal fraction of bilayer/thicker regions that can dominate magnetometry and XMCD. The manuscript needs a quantitative morphological argument (e.g., large-area STM/AFM statistics, thickness histograms, or coverage-dependent magnetic scaling that rules out minority thicker regions) before the ~200 K monolayer Tc can be regarded as established.

    Authors: We agree that the monolayer assignment is load-bearing and that average thickness and local crystallinity alone are not sufficient. In the revised manuscript we will (i) add quantitative large-area STM/AFM analysis: thickness histograms and areal fractions of monolayer vs bilayer/thicker islands over multiple fields of view, with explicit upper bounds on the bilayer/thicker coverage; (ii) present coverage-dependent magnetometry/XMCD scaling that shows the ferromagnetic signal tracks the intended monolayer coverage rather than a minority thicker fraction; and (iii) strengthen the discussion of phase purity (RHEED, diffraction, and composition checks) to constrain secondary Co–Fe–Ge–Te phases and substrate/interface contributions. Where residual uncertainty remains (e.g., sparse thicker nuclei below the statistical detection floor), we will state it explicitly and qualify the ~200 K claim accordingly. These additions use existing growth and characterization data where possible and will be reported with the same rigor as the magnetic results. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The inference that similar composition trends in mono- and multilayers imply dominance of intralayer over interlayer interactions is only valid if the monolayer samples are truly continuous single layers. If the “monolayer” magnetic response is weighted by thicker islands, the observed similarity of trends is expected by construction and does not independently support the intralayer-dominance conclusion. This circularity should be broken by the same morphological controls requested above, or the claim should be softened to a consistency argument rather than a demonstration.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the intralayer-dominance inference is only as strong as the monolayer assignment; if the monolayer magnetic response were dominated by thicker islands, similar composition trends would not independently demonstrate intralayer control. We will break this circularity in two ways. First, the quantitative morphological controls and coverage-dependent magnetic scaling described in our response to the previous comment will be used to establish that the monolayer signal is not weighted by minority thicker regions. Second, we will rephrase the claim in the abstract and main text from a firm “demonstration” of intralayer dominance to a carefully worded conclusion: that the composition trends in Tc and anisotropy are consistent between monolayers and multilayers and, given the morphological evidence for continuous monolayers, support the interpretation that magnetic properties are primarily governed by intralayer interactions. We will also note what would be required for a fully independent separation of intra- vs interlayer exchange (e.g., controlled interlayer spacing or stacking variants). revision: yes

  3. Referee: The DFT mechanism (Co strengthens neighboring Fe moments and intralayer FM exchange despite a weak Co moment) is secondary to the morphology issue but still needs tighter connection to experiment. The manuscript should state the exchange-correlation functional, any Hubbard U values and double-counting scheme, the supercell and Co concentration used, and how the computed exchange parameters map onto the observed Tc trend. Without these, the “mechanism” remains a plausible narrative rather than a falsifiable link to the measured composition dependence.

    Authors: We agree that the DFT section must be made fully reproducible and more tightly linked to the measured composition dependence. In the revised manuscript we will explicitly report: the exchange-correlation functional; any Hubbard U values, the orbitals to which they are applied, and the double-counting scheme; the supercell size, Co substitution site(s), and effective Co concentration; structural relaxation criteria; and the method used to extract exchange parameters (e.g., total-energy mapping or Green’s-function-based approaches). We will then show how the computed changes in neighboring Fe moments and intralayer FM exchange with Co concentration map onto the experimental Tc trend (and, where relevant, anisotropy), including a clear statement of the assumptions in that mapping (mean-field or other estimate of Tc, neglect of interlayer terms in the monolayer limit, etc.). This will convert the present narrative into a falsifiable, parameter-complete link between the XMCD-supported Co site and the observed composition dependence of Tc. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: experimental MBE/XMCD/magnetometry results with independent Co-doping parameter and element-specific observables; DFT is supporting, not definitional.

full rationale

This is an experimental condensed-matter paper whose central claims (monolayer ferromagnetism to ~200 K; Co-driven Tc enhancement via strengthened neighboring Fe moments and intralayer exchange) rest on measured observables: thickness- and composition-controlled MBE growth, magnetometry/Tc trends, and element-specific XMCD, with DFT used only as supporting interpretation of substitution site and exchange. Co concentration is an independent growth input, not fitted to the Tc outcome being claimed. Similar mono- vs multilayer composition trends are empirical comparisons, not tautological. No equation or prediction reduces by construction to a fitted input; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors’ prior work as a load-bearing premise that forces the result. Any self-citations typical of a materials-series group are background context for growth recipes or bulk analogs and do not define or force the monolayer Tc or the XMCD-derived mechanism. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external experimental benchmarks. Score 1 reflects only the ordinary possibility of minor non-load-bearing self-citation in a group series, not circularity of the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review. The claim rests on standard condensed-matter tools (MBE, XMCD, DFT) and domain assumptions about continuous monolayer coverage and phase purity. No new particles or forces are invented. Free parameters likely include Co concentration (controlled) and any DFT Hubbard U or exchange-correlation choices, but none are quantified in the abstract. Invented entities: none.

free parameters (2)
  • Co doping concentration / composition
    Composition is deliberately varied and is the independent variable used to track Tc and anisotropy trends; exact values and calibration method are not given in the abstract.
  • DFT exchange-correlation / Hubbard U (if used)
    Mechanism claims rely on DFT; typical Fe-based magnets use a U parameter or functional choice that can shift moments and exchange. Not specified in the abstract.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption MBE-grown films of the intended Co-doped Fe5GeTe2 phase can be realized as continuous monolayers with controlled composition.
    Central to attributing the ~200 K signal to monolayers rather than islands or secondary phases; invoked throughout the abstract’s monolayer claims.
  • domain assumption XMCD dichroism at Fe and Co edges reports local magnetic moments of the intended lattice sites in the film.
    Used to identify Co substitution site and relative moments; standard synchrotron assumption but load-bearing for the mechanism.
  • domain assumption Density-functional theory (with the chosen functional) correctly captures relative Fe/Co moments and intralayer exchange trends upon Co substitution.
    Supports the stated mechanism that weak-moment Co strengthens neighboring Fe moments and FM exchange.
  • ad hoc to paper Similarity of composition trends in mono- and multilayers implies dominance of intralayer over interlayer magnetic interactions.
    Inferential step stated in the abstract; plausible but not a theorem—could be confounded by growth-induced strain or interface effects that scale similarly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High temperature ferromagnetism in epitaxial monolayers of Co-doped Fe5GeTe2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EMFQ35NO

@misc{pith2026260705962,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High temperature ferromagnetism in epitaxial monolayers of Co-doped Fe5GeTe2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EMFQ35NO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05962}
}
abstract

Magnetic van der Waals materials have mainly been investigated in their bulk form or as few-layers flakes. Due to the challenges in producing atomically thin films, only a few have been isolated as monolayers, which typically exhibit long-range magnetic order below 150 K. In this work, we use molecular beam epitaxy to synthesize Co-doped Fe5GeTe2, achieving precise control over both thickness and composition. We demonstrate ferromagnetism well above room temperature in multilayer samples and present clear evidence of ferromagnetic ordering in monolayers up to $\sim$200 K. The changes in Curie temperature and magnetic anisotropy with composition exhibit similar trends in both monolayers and thicker films, indicating that the magnetic properties are primarily governed by intralayer magnetic interactions. Through element-specific X-ray magnetic circular dichroism and density functional theory, we identify the substitution site of Co dopants and reveal the mechanism behind the Curie temperature enhancement induced by Co doping. Our findings suggest that, despite their weak magnetic moment, Co dopants strengthen the magnetic moments on neighboring Fe atoms and enhance the intralayer ferromagnetic exchange interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05962 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. c presents the ratio of integrated X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) white lines at the Co and Fe L edges, demonstrating proportionality to the nominal Co concentration x/(1-x), which indicates efficient substitution of Co into F5GT at the ML scale. Magnetic properties were investigated using XAS combined with XMCD measurements, performed with the experimental geometry illustrated in Fig. 3a, where a magnetic fiel… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG 3. XAS/XMCD on FCGT monolayers. (a) Measurement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gibertini, M

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

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Cortie, G.L

    D.L. Cortie, G.L. Causer, K.C. Rule, H. Fritzsche, W. Kreuzpaintner, F. Klose, Adv. Funct. Mater. 30, 1901414 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Wang et al., ACS Nano 16, 6960 (2022)

    Q.H. Wang et al., ACS Nano 16, 6960 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Kagerer et al., Phys

    P. Kagerer et al., Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L022019 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Huang et al., Nature 546, 270 (2017)

    B. Huang et al., Nature 546, 270 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Bedoya-Pinto et al., Science 374, 616 (2021)

    A. Bedoya-Pinto et al., Science 374, 616 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Kim et al., Nature Elec

    M. Kim et al., Nature Elec. 2, 457 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Buccoliero, P

    G. Buccoliero, P. Vasconcelos Borges Pinho, M. dos Reis Cantarino, F. Rosa, N.B. Brookes, and R. Sant, Adv. Mater. Interf. 12, e00229 (2025)

    work page 2025

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Lee et al., Nano Lett

    J.-U. Lee et al., Nano Lett. 16, 7433 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Fei et al., Nature Mater

    Z. Fei et al., Nature Mater. 17, 778 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Deng et al., Nature 563, 94 (2018)

    Y. Deng et al., Nature 563, 94 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Roemer, C

    R. Roemer, C. Liu, and K. Zou, npj 2D Mater. Appl. 4, 33 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Lee et al., Nano Lett

    K. Lee et al., Nano Lett. 21, 3511 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    M. Wang, B. Lei, K. Zhu, Y. Deng, M. Tian, Z. Xiang, T. Wu, and X. Chen, npj 2D Mater. Appl. 8, 22 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Guillet, et al., Nano Lett

    T. Guillet, et al., Nano Lett. 24, 822 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Ding et al., Phys

    S. Ding et al., Phys. Rev. B 103, 094429 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Liu et al., Phys

    B. Liu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 267205 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Iturriaga et al., npj 2D Mater

    H. Iturriaga et al., npj 2D Mater. Appl. 7, 56 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Tan et al., Nano Lett

    C. Tan et al., Nano Lett. 21, 5599 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    May, M.-H

    A.F. May, M.-H. Du, V.R. Cooper, and M.A. McGuire, Phys. Rev. Mater. 4, 074008 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    C. Tian, F. Pan, S. Xu, K. Ai, T. Xia, and P. Cheng, Appl. Phys. Lett. 116, 202402 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Zhang et al., Phys

    H. Zhang et al., Phys. Rev. Materials 6, 044403 (2022)

    2022

  15. [24]

    May et al., ACS Nano 13, 4436 (2019)

    A.F. May et al., ACS Nano 13, 4436 (2019)

    2019

  16. [25]

    May, C.A

    A.F. May, C.A. Bridges, and M.A. McGuire, Phys. Rev. Mater. 3, 104401 (2019)

    2019

  17. [26]

    Seo et al., Sci

    J. Seo et al., Sci. Adv. 6, eaay8912 (2020)

    2020

  18. [27]

    Zhang et al., Phys

    H. Zhang et al., Phys. Rev. B 102, 064417 (2020)

    2020

  19. [28]

    Ribeiro et al., npj 2D Mater

    M. Ribeiro et al., npj 2D Mater. Appl. 6, 10 (2022)

    2022

  20. [29]

    Lv et al., Small 19, 2302387 (2023)

    H. Lv et al., Small 19, 2302387 (2023)

    2023

  21. [30]

    Ly et al., Adv

    T.T. Ly et al., Adv. Func. Mater. 31, 2009758 (2021)

    2021

  22. [31]

    Ershadrad, S

    S. Ershadrad, S. Ghosh, D. Wang, Y. Kvashnin, and B. Sanyal, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 13, 4877 (2022)

    2022

  23. [32]

    Sampaio, A

    J. Sampaio, A. Pascaud, E. Quero, A. Thiaville, V. Polewczyk, A. Marty, F. Bonell, and A. Mougin, Nano Lett. 25, 14341 (2025)

    2025

  24. [33]

    Stahl, E

    J. Stahl, E. Shlaen, and D. Johrendt, Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. 644, 1923 (2018)

    1923

  25. [34]

    X. Chen, W. Tian, Y. He, H. Zhang, T.L. Werner, S. Lapidus, J.P.C. Ruff, R. Ramesh, and R.J. Birgeneau, Phys. Rev. Mater. 7, 044411 (2023)

    2023

  26. [35]

    Silinskas et al., Phys

    M. Silinskas et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 256702 (2024)

    2024

  27. [36]

    Wu et al., Adv

    Y. Wu et al., Adv. Mater. 35, 2302568 (2023)

    2023

  28. [37]

    Chen et al., Phys

    X. Chen et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 217203 (2022)

    2022

  29. [38]

    See Supplemental Material , which includes Refs. [ 38- 41], for additional experimental details, RHEED and X-ray diffraction measurements, MOKE (Arrott plots and influence of the capping layers), XAS/XMCD sum rules analysis , magnetic loops at high field , magnetic anisotropie...

  30. [39]

    Renaud, A

    G. Renaud, A. Barbier, and O. Robach, Phys. Rev. B 60, 5872 (1999)

    1999

  31. [40]

    Thole, P

    B.T. Thole, P. Carra, F. Sette, and G. van der Laan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1943 (1992)

    1943

  32. [41]

    Carra, B.T

    P. Carra, B.T. Thole, M. Altarell i, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 694 (1993)

    1993

  33. [42]

    Bučko et al., J

    T. Bučko et al., J. Phys. Chem. A 114, 11814 (2010)

    2010

  34. [43]

    Brookes et al., Nucl

    N.B. Brookes et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 903, 175 (2018). 7

    2018

  35. [44]

    Ohresser et al., Rev

    P. Ohresser et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 85, 013106 (2014)

    2014

  36. [45]

    Fisher and M.N

    M.E. Fisher and M.N. Barber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 1516 (1972)

    1972

  37. [46]

    Landau, Phys

    D.P. Landau, Phys. Rev. B 13, 2997 (1976)

    1976

  38. [47]

    W. Dürr, M. Taborelli, O. Paul, R. Germar, W. Gudat, D. Pescia, and M. Landolt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 206 (1989)

    1989

  39. [48]

    Z.Q. Qiu, J. Pearson, and S.D. Bader, Phys. Rev. B 49, 8797 (1994)

    1994

  40. [49]

    Heppell et al

    E. Heppell et al. 2D Mater. 12, 025001 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed July 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.