Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Molecular-beam epitaxy on GaAs(111)B yields nearly phase-pure wurtzite MnTe, and the films are antiferromagnetic below 58 K.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review

2026-08-02 06:39 UTC pith:XCBEKKCU

load-bearing objection Solid growth paper with honest magnetometry; the structural story is the real contribution, the magnetic numbers should be treated as provisional until the subtraction systematics are propagated. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.12191 v2 pith:XCBEKKCU submitted 2026-07-13 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Phase-Controlled Epitaxy and Anisotropic Antiferromagnetism of Polar Wurtzite MnTe

Janusz Sadowski , Jaroslaw Z. Domagala , Piotr Dziawa , Anna Kaleta , Sania Dad , Maciej W\'ojcik , Dorota Janaszko , S{\l}awomir Kret
show 3 more authors
Oleksii Liubchenko Maciej Sawicki Katarzyna Gas
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords altermagnetismwurtzite MnTemolecular beam epitaxyantiferromagnetic orderingMnTe polymorphsSQUID magnetometryGaAs(111)Bphase control
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper demonstrates that molecular-beam epitaxy directly on GaAs(111)B can produce nearly phase-pure wurtzite MnTe, a polar polymorph that has previously appeared only as an admixture in MnTe films. A moderate increase in growth temperature, with unchanged fluxes, switches the material from a multiphase layer containing interfacial NiAs-type inclusions to an almost single-phase wurtzite film. Magnetometry of the optimized films identifies them as antiferromagnetic semiconductors with TN = 58 ± 2 K, a large negative Curie–Weiss temperature of about −420 K, and an anisotropic, predominantly field-linear excess magnetization appearing below TN. If correct, the result gives experimental access to a noncentrosymmetric antiferromagnetic platform for testing symmetry-controlled spin responses and competing magnetic configurations predicted for wurtzite Mn chalcogenides.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that nearly phase-pure wurtzite β-MnTe can be stabilized epitaxially on GaAs(111)B by choosing a higher growth temperature (about 425 °C vs 375 °C), and that the resulting films order antiferromagnetically at TN = 58 ± 2 K. The ordering is accompanied by an excess magnetization of about 5 × 10⁻³ μB/Mn at 5 K that is linear in field, anisotropic (larger for H perpendicular to the c axis than parallel to it), and vanishes at TN, along with a Curie–Weiss temperature θCW = −420 ± 50 K and effective spin S ≈ 2.6, consistent with high-spin Mn²⁺. The paper assigns this low-temperature response to the collective Mn sublattice response of the wurtzite phase, rather

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the growth-temperature-controlled phase selection during molecular-beam epitaxy: keeping the same Mn and Te fluxes and changing only the substrate temperature by about 50 °C suppresses interfacial nucleation of the NiAs-type α-MnTe inclusions, producing an almost single-phase polar wurtzite layer that is epitaxially aligned with GaAs(111)B (out-of-plane [0001] parallel to substrate [111]). The magnetic analysis relies on a rod-geometry SQUID protocol in which the specimen is cut into strips, stacked into a cuboid, and rotated 90° about its long axis to compare the two field orientations with nearly identical coupling to the pickup coils; subtracting a reference GaAs

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative magnetic parameters (TN, θCW, S, and the anisotropy sign) rest on subtracting a large GaAs substrate signal from the sample signal, where a ~1% systematic mismatch changes the extracted layer magnetization by ±20% at 300 K, and a small residual Ga–In glue background cannot be completely excluded.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be a polarized neutron or muon experiment on the same optimized films: it would determine the wavevector and orientation of the ordered Mn moments and show whether the apparent easy-plane susceptibility (larger for H⊥c) corresponds to a collinear Néel vector along c or to a noncollinear configuration; simultaneously, a zero-MnTe control specimen prepared with the identical rod-geometry subtraction protocol, measured over the same field and temperature range, should show no excess magnetization or bifurcation at 58 K.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Epitaxial polar wz-MnTe becomes an experimentally available noncentrosymmetric antiferromagnetic semiconductor, enabling tests of predicted altermagnetic spin photocurrents and spin-momentum locking.
  • The large frustration index f ≈ 7 places wz-MnTe near tetrahedrally bonded zb-MnTe (f ≈ 9), supporting the view that the low TN reflects reduced ordering efficiency of tetrahedral superexchange rather than weak exchange.
  • The sign of the magnetic anisotropy (larger susceptibility for H⊥c) provides a first experimental constraint that discriminates between collinear and noncollinear competing magnetic configurations proposed for the wurtzite MnX family.
  • The demonstrated phase switching via growth temperature, with no change in fluxes, gives a practical recipe for phase-purifying other polymorphic Mn chalcogenides on (111)B substrates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the excess magnetization arises from a nearby noncollinear all-in-all-out state, elastic or magnetostrictive measurements might reveal an associated lattice distortion at TN — a test the paper does not report.
  • The sensitivity analysis implies that the quantitative values (θCW and S) would need confirmation by a method independent of substrate subtraction, such as neutron diffraction on isotopically enriched layers or muon spin rotation on the same films.
  • The same temperature-engineering approach could be transferred to wurtzite MnSe or MnS, where recent calculations predict similar competing magnetic states, making the growth protocol a template for the wider family.
  • One could test the altermagnetic prediction directly by measuring spin photocurrents in the optimized films; the paper's phase purity is the prerequisite, but transport data are not yet shown.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports molecular-beam epitaxy of nearly single-phase wurtzite (β) MnTe on GaAs(111)B and shows that a 50 °C change in growth temperature switches the film between a multiphase β/α layer and an almost pure wz phase. The structural claims are based on RHEED, high-resolution XRD (lattice parameters, rocking curves, reciprocal space maps), and STEM/HR-STEM with GPA strain mapping. The magnetic part uses SQUID magnetometry with a mass-scaled GaAs reference subtraction and a rod-like specimen geometry to extract Curie–Weiss parameters and a low-temperature excess magnetization. The authors conclude that optimized wz-MnTe is antiferromagnetic with TN ≈ 58 K, θCW ≈ −420 K, effective S ≈ 2.6, and an anisotropic, predominantly field-linear excess response below TN, and they frame the material as a platform for altermagnetic and symmetry-controlled transport studies.

Significance. If the magnetic conclusions are correct, this is a timely experimental advance: epitaxial polar wz-MnTe has been predicted to host noncentrosymmetric altermagnetic responses and competing magnetic configurations, and nearly phase-pure films have not been available. The structural characterization—phase purity, epitaxial registry, lattice parameters, and interfacial location of α inclusions—is convincing and independently valuable. The magnetic claims, however, are currently no more than suggestive because the MnTe-layer moment is a small difference between two large substrate-dominated signals, and the paper's own sensitivity analysis bounds the systematic error at ±20% at 300 K without propagating it into the reported values. The qualitative existence of a low-temperature anomaly and anisotropy is plausible, but the specific numbers in the abstract and Section 2.4 are not established at the claimed precision.

major comments (3)
  1. [SI S3 and §2.4] SI S3 states that a systematic mismatch of about 1% between the sample and reference moments changes the extracted MnTe-layer magnetization by ±20% at 300 K, and that a residual Ga–In glue background 'cannot be completely excluded' and is only assumed to be saturated at 4 T. These systematic uncertainties directly affect θCW, the Curie constant (hence S = 2.6 ± 0.2), and the temperature dependence of Mexp used to define TN. The reported uncertainties (±50 K, ±0.2, ±2 K) are statistical fit errors only. The abstract's numerical magnetic parameters are therefore not robust at the quoted level. The authors should either propagate the ±20% lever arm into the reported magnetic parameters, or explicitly downgrade the quantitative claims to qualitative statements of strong AFM exchange and a low-temperature anomaly.
  2. [§2.4, Fig. 6 and SI S3] The central magnetic feature, ΔME = Mexp − MCW, has a magnitude of about 5×10⁻³ μB/Mn at 5 K, which is the same order as the subtraction residual implied by SI S3's ±20% sensitivity. Moreover, because MCW is an extrapolation of the high-temperature Curie–Weiss fit, the statement that 'ΔME vanishes at TN' is partly inherited from the fitting procedure rather than being an independent observation. To support the collective antiferromagnetic origin, the authors should show that the anomaly scales with applied field (or otherwise survives a change in background model), and ideally present data for a second sample with a different residual background. The current single-sample analysis is insufficient to exclude a subtraction artifact.
  3. [§2.4 and SI S3] The sign of the anisotropy ΔMA = M(H∥c) − M(H⊥c) is used as a constraint on the magnetic order parameter. SI S3 acknowledges that an orientation-dependent coupling error 'could even change the apparent sign' of the extracted layer contribution. The rod-geometry construction reduces this risk, but no quantitative upper bound is given for residual orientation-dependent errors after the γ = 1.02 correction. Since the anisotropy sign is a load-bearing qualitative conclusion, the authors should either quantify the residual orientation uncertainty or corroborate the sign with a second independent measurement (e.g., a differently prepared specimen or a higher-field measurement).
minor comments (5)
  1. [SI S3] The assumption that the residual Ga–In glue contribution is saturated at 4 T is asserted but not tested. Comparing the extracted χ(T) at 1 T and 4 T would provide a direct check; if the two disagree outside the quoted uncertainties, the saturation assumption must be revisited.
  2. [Figure 5 caption] The caption says 'linear interpolation to the Curie–Weiss law' where 'linear fit' is meant; the distinction matters because interpolation has a different meaning in data analysis.
  3. [Methods and Results] The growth rate is given as 0.02 ML/s in §2.1 and as 0.25 Å/s in the Experimental Section. The manuscript should reconcile these values or state the conversion explicitly (assuming a particular ML thickness for MnTe).
  4. [Supplementary Tables] The readable rendering of Tables S.T1 and S.T2 is poor: the 'η' and 'β' symbols are garbled, and the column headers are unclear. Please ensure the tables are legible in the final version.
  5. [References] Several references (e.g., 29, 32, 35, 41) carry future-dated publication details or arXiv identifiers. Please verify that these are published, in press, or otherwise publicly available, and give complete author lists where truncated ('Chen et. al.' in ref. 35).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: structural and magnetic claims rest on independent XRD/TEM and raw magnetometry differences.

full rationale

The paper is a characterization study rather than a derivation, and no load-bearing step reduces to its own input. The structural claims (nearly phase-pure wurtzite MnTe, epitaxial relationship, lattice parameters) are established by RHEED, high-resolution XRD, and STEM/GPA, which are independent of the magnetic analysis. The magnetic parameters are obtained by SQUID magnetometry with a reference-subtraction protocol detailed in SI S3. The only fitted construction is ΔME = Mexp − MCW, where MCW(T) = H·C/(T−θCW) is extrapolated from a high-temperature (70–350 K) Curie–Weiss fit to 1/χ(T). ΔME is the residual after subtracting that fit; its vanishing near 58 K is an empirical crossover and is not enforced by the fit, since the fit was performed above the transition and does not constrain the low-temperature extrapolation. Crucially, the anisotropy ΔMA = M(H∥c) − M(H⊥c) is a raw difference of measured moments with no fitted model subtracted, and it independently vanishes at the same 58 ± 2 K; therefore the Néel-temperature assignment does not reduce to the Curie–Weiss fit. Self-citations (refs 37–45) are methodological references for SQUID background subtraction and rod-geometry correction; they support the measurement protocol and are not used to import the paper's physical conclusions. SI S3 explicitly states that a ~1% systematic mismatch between sample and reference moments changes the extracted layer magnetization by ±20% at 300 K and that a Ga–In glue background 'cannot be completely excluded'; these are acknowledged systematic-uncertainty limitations, not circular steps, and bear on robustness rather than on any self-referential derivation. No equation or parameter in the paper is defined in terms of the quantity it is used to establish, and no fitted quantity is renamed as an independent prediction. Hence there is no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The quantitative magnetic results rest on three fitted quantities (θCW, C, MCW baseline) and on a substrate-subtraction protocol whose ±20% systematic sensitivity at 300 K is acknowledged in the SI but not propagated into the reported uncertainties. Structural claims (XRD/TEM) carry no such fitting burden. No invented entities; candidate mechanisms are borrowed from the cited theory literature.

free parameters (3)
  • θCW (Curie-Weiss temperature) = −420 ± 50 K
    Linear extrapolation of 1/χ(T) at 4 T in the ~70–350 K range (Fig. 5b). Carries the claim of strong AFM exchange and the frustration index f ≈ 7.
  • Curie constant C → effective spin S = S = 2.6 ± 0.2
    Slope of the same 1/χ(T) fit; used to argue Mn is high-spin Mn2+ and that the low-T anomaly is a collective, not free-spin, response.
  • MCW baseline for excess magnetization = MCW(T) = H·C/(T − θCW)
    ΔME = Mexp − MCW is defined against this extrapolated fit, so the reported ΔME magnitude (≈5×10⁻³ μB/Mn at 5 K) and its vanishing at TN inherit the fit uncertainty.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The Curie–Weiss law χ = C/(T − θCW) describes the paramagnetic susceptibility of the wz-MnTe layer.
    Invoked in §2.4/Fig. 5b; assumes a single paramagnetic sublattice and a temperature-independent background after subtraction.
  • domain assumption The reference-subtraction and rod-geometry protocol recovers the true MnTe layer moment to better than ~1%.
    SI S3; the whole magnetic extraction is a difference of two large moments, with ±20% sensitivity at 300 K to a 1% mismatch — acknowledged but not propagated into parameter errors.
  • domain assumption Residual α-MnTe inclusions and residual Ga–In glue do not materially affect the low-temperature anomaly.
    Argued by analogy with zb-MnTe (ref 49) and by the qualitative similarity of S#1, but no quantitative subtraction of the α-phase contribution is provided; α-MnTe orders at ~307 K.
  • domain assumption III-nitride-based dislocation models apply to wz-MnTe X-ray line shapes.
    SI S1.3; explicitly labeled semi-quantitative, order-of-magnitude.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17403 in / 20170 out tokens · 202106 ms · 2026-08-02T06:39:17.031223+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Altermagnetic spintronics requires materials in which compensated magnetic order, symmetry-controlled electronic responses, and epitaxial tunability can be combined in experimentally accessible thin films. MnTe is a key material in this context, but experimental studies have focused mainly on the stable NiAs-type polymorph, whereas the polar wurtzite phase remains largely unexplored. Here we demonstrate molecular-beam epitaxy growth and investigate properties of nearly phase-pure wurtzite MnTe deposited directly on GaAs(111)B, and show that small changes in the growth conditions strongly modify the phase composition, from a multiphase state with endotaxial NiAs-type inclusions embedded in wurtzite MnTe matrix to an almost single-phase polar wurtzite layer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.12191 by Anna Kaleta, Dorota Janaszko, Janusz Sadowski, Jaroslaw Z. Domagala, Katarzyna Gas, Maciej Sawicki, Maciej W\'ojcik, Oleksii Liubchenko, Piotr Dziawa, Sania Dad, S{\l}awomir Kret.

Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Excess magnetization established below the Néel point, ME = Mexp - MCW, obtained after subtracting the Curie-Weiss contribution obtained from the linear approximation of inverse magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

64 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Beyond Conventional Ferromagnetism and Antiferromagnetism: A Phase with Nonrelativistic Spin and Crystal Rotation Symmetry

    Libor Šmejkal, Jairo Sinova, and Tomas Jungwirth, “Beyond Conventional Ferromagnetism and Antiferromagnetism: A Phase with Nonrelativistic Spin and Crystal Rotation Symmetry” Phys. Rev. X 12, (2022): 031042

    2022

  2. [2]

    Emerging Research Landscape of Altermagnetism

    Libor Šmejkal, Jairo Sinova, and Tomas Jungwirth, “Emerging Research Landscape of Altermagnetism”, Phys. Rev. X 12, (2022): 040501

    2022

  3. [3]

    All-electrical layer-spintronics in altermagnetic bilayers, Mater

    Rui Peng, Jin Yang, Lin Hu, Wee-Liat Ong, Pin Ho, Chit Siong Lau, Junwei Liu, and Yee Sin Ang. All-electrical layer-spintronics in altermagnetic bilayers, Mater. Horiz. 12 (2025): 2197-2207

    2025

  4. [4]

    All- electrically controlled spintronics in altermagnetic heterostructures

    Pei-Hao Fu, Qianqian Lv, Yong Xu, Jorge Cayao, Jun-Feng Liu, and Xiang-Long Yu, “All- electrically controlled spintronics in altermagnetic heterostructures”, npj Quantum Mater. 10, (2025): 111

    2025

  5. [5]

    Theory of Anisotropic Magnetoresistance in Altermagnets and Its Applications

    Xian-Peng Zhang, Wanxiang Feng, Run-Wu Zhang, Xiaolong Fan, Xiangrong Wang, and Yugui Yao, “Theory of Anisotropic Magnetoresistance in Altermagnets and Its Applications”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, (2025): 266706

    2025

  6. [6]

    Ferroelectric switchable altermagnetism

    M. Gu, Y. Liu, H. Zhu, K. Yananose, X. Chen, Y. Hu, A. Stroppa, and Q. Liu, “Ferroelectric switchable altermagnetism”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, (2025): 106802. 16

    2025

  7. [7]

    Two dimensional antiferromagnets with nonrelativistic spin splitting switchable by electric polarization

    H. Mavani, K. Huang, K. Samanta, and E. Y. Tsymbal, “Two dimensional antiferromagnets with nonrelativistic spin splitting switchable by electric polarization”, Phys. Rev. B 112, (2025): L060401

    2025

  8. [8]

    Altermagnetic multiferroics and altermagnetoelectric effect

    L. Šmejkal, “Altermagnetic multiferroics and altermagnetoelectric effect”, arXiv, (2024): 2411.19928

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Altermagnetism in MnTe: Origin, predicted manifestations, and routes to detwinning

    I. I. Mazin, “Altermagnetism in MnTe: Origin, predicted manifestations, and routes to detwinning”, Phys. Rev. B 107, (2023): L100418

    2023

  10. [10]

    Nanoscale imaging and control of altermagnetism in MnTe

    O. J. Amin, A. Dal Din, E. Golias, Y. Niu, A. Zakharov, S. C. Fromage, C. J. B. Fields, S. L. Heywood, R. B. Cousins, F. Maccherozzi, J. Krempaský, J. H. Dil, D. Kriegner, B. Kiraly, R. P. Campion, A. W. Rushforth, K. W. Edmonds, S. S. Dhesi, L. Šmejkal, T. Jungwirth, and P. Wadley, “Nanoscale imaging and control of altermagnetism in MnTe”, Nature 636, (2...

    2024

  11. [11]

    Observation of a giant band splitting in altermagnetic MnTe

    T. Osumi, S. Souma, T. Aoyama, K. Yamauchi, A. Honma, K. Nakayama, T. Takahashi, Ohgushi, and T. Sato, “Observation of a giant band splitting in altermagnetic MnTe”, Phys. Rev. B 109, (2024): 115102

    2024

  12. [12]

    Altermagnetic lifting of Kramers spin degeneracy

    J. Krempaský, L. Šmejkal, S. W. D’Souza, M. Hajlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhlířová, F. Alarab, P. C. Constantinou, V. Strocov, D. Usanov, W. R. Pudelko, R. González Hernández, A. Birk Hellenes, Z. Jansa, H. Reichlová, Z. Šobáň, R. D. Gonzalez Betancourt, P. Wadley, J. Sinova, D. Kriegner, J. Minár, J. H. Dil, and T. Jungwirth, “Altermagnetic lifting of Kram...

    2024

  13. [13]

    Alloy-Stabilized Semiconducting and Magnetic Zinc- Blende Phase of MnTe

    Su-Huai Wei and Alex Zunger, “Alloy-Stabilized Semiconducting and Magnetic Zinc- Blende Phase of MnTe”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, (1986): 2391-2394

    1986

  14. [14]

    Zinc‐blende MnTe: Epilayers and quantum well structures

    S.M. Durbin, J. Han, Sungki O, M. Kobayashi, D.R. Menke, R.1 L. Gunshor, Q. Fu, N. Pelekanos, A.V. Nurmikko, D. Li, J. Gonsalves, N. Otsuka, “Zinc‐blende MnTe: Epilayers and quantum well structures”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 55, no. 20 (1989): 2087–2089

    1989

  15. [15]

    Neutron-diffraction studies of zinc-blende MnTe epitaxial films and MnTe/ZnTe superlattices: The effect of strain and dilution on a strongly frustrated fcc antiferromagnet

    T. M. Giebultowicz, P. Kłosowski, N. Samarth, H. Luo, J. K. Furdyna, J. J. Rhyne, “Neutron-diffraction studies of zinc-blende MnTe epitaxial films and MnTe/ZnTe superlattices: The effect of strain and dilution on a strongly frustrated fcc antiferromagnet”, Phys. Rev. B 48, (1993): 12817. 17

    1993

  16. [16]

    Control of the crystal orientation of zincblende MnTe epitaxial films grown on GaAs

    H. Akinaga, K. Ando, T. Abe, and S. Yoshida, “Control of the crystal orientation of zincblende MnTe epitaxial films grown on GaAs”, J. Appl. Phys. 74, no.1 (1993): 746–748

    1993

  17. [17]

    Structural properties of cubic MnTe layers grown by MBE

    E. Janik, E. Dynowska, J. Ba̧k-Misiuk, M. Leszczyński, W. Szuszkiewicz, T. Wojtowicz, G. Karczewski, A.K. Zakrzewski, J. Kossut, “Structural properties of cubic MnTe layers grown by MBE”, Thin Solid Films 267, (1995): 74-78

    1995

  18. [18]

    Zinc-blende MnTe(111) on BaF2(111) substrates for optical measurements

    E. Janik, E. Dynowska, J. Ba̧k-Misiuk, J. Domagala, M. Kutrowski, T. Wojtowicz, and A. Stachow, “Zinc-blende MnTe(111) on BaF2(111) substrates for optical measurements”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 68, no. 26 (1996): 3796–3798

    1996

  19. [19]

    Nanometer-Thick Metastable Zinc Blende γ‑MnTe Single-Crystalline Films for High-Performance Ultraviolet and Broadband Photodetectors

    Qin Lian, Lisa Zhou, Jiyue Zhang, Hongzhu Wu, Wei Bai, Jing Yang, Yuanyuan Zhang, Ruijuan Qi, Rong Huang, Xiaodong Tang, Jianlu Wang, and Junhao Chu, “Nanometer-Thick Metastable Zinc Blende γ‑MnTe Single-Crystalline Films for High-Performance Ultraviolet and Broadband Photodetectors”, ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 3, no. 12 (2020): 12046−12054

    2020

  20. [20]

    Reversible displacive transformation in MnTe polymorphic semiconductor

    Shunsuke Mori, Shogo Hatayama, Yi Shuang, Daisuke Ando, and Yuji Sutou, “Reversible displacive transformation in MnTe polymorphic semiconductor”, Nat. Commun. 11, (2020): 85

    2020

  21. [21]

    Shunsuke Mori, Daisuke Ando, Yuji Sutou. Sequential two-stage displacive transformation from β to α via Sequential two-stage displacive transformation from β to α via β′ phase in polymorphic MnTe film phase in polymorphic MnTe film. Mater. Des. 196, (2020): 109141

    2020

  22. [22]

    Thermal stress control of the polymorphic transformation in MnTe semiconductor films

    Shunsuke Mori, Yinli Wang, Daisuke Ando, Fumio Narita, Yuji Sutou. Thermal stress control of the polymorphic transformation in MnTe semiconductor films. Materialia 24, (2022): 101493

    2022

  23. [23]

    Electrical Conduction Mechanism of β-MnTe Thin Film with Wurtzite-Type Structure Using Radiofrequency Magnetron Sputtering

    Mihyeon Kim, Shunsuke Mori, Yi Shuang, Shogo Hatayama, Daisuke Ando, and Yuji Sutou. Electrical Conduction Mechanism of β-MnTe Thin Film with Wurtzite-Type Structure Using Radiofrequency Magnetron Sputtering. Phys. Status Solidi RRL 16, (2022): 2100641

    2022

  24. [24]

    Photoinduced Nonvolatile Displacive Transformation and Optical Switching in MnTe Semiconductors

    Shunsuke Mori, Hiroshi Tanimura Tetsu Ichitsubo, and Yuji Sutou, “Photoinduced Nonvolatile Displacive Transformation and Optical Switching in MnTe Semiconductors”, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 15, no. 36, (2023): 42730−42736. 18

    2023

  25. [25]

    Buffer-layer-controlled nickeline vs zinc- blende/wurtzite-type MnTe growths on c-plane Al2O3 substrates

    Deepti Jain, Hee Taek Yi, Alessandro R. Mazza, Kim Kisslinger, Myung-Geun Han, Matthew Brahlek, and Seongshik Oh, “Buffer-layer-controlled nickeline vs zinc- blende/wurtzite-type MnTe growths on c-plane Al2O3 substrates”, Phys. Rev. Materials 8, (2024): 014203

    2024

  26. [26]

    Low-temperature atomic layer deposition of metastable MnTe films for phase change memory devices

    Gwangsik Jeon, Jeongwoo Jeon, Woohyun Kim, Daehyeon Kim, Wontae Noh, Wonho Choi, Byongwoo Park, Sangmin Jeon, Sungjin Kim, Chanyoung Yoo, and Cheol Seong Hwang. Low-temperature atomic layer deposition of metastable MnTe films for phase change memory devices. J. Mater. Chem. C 13, no. 13, (2025): 6762–6771

    2025

  27. [27]

    Phase control in polymorphic transformationbased nonvolatile memory devices for reliable data reading in X-point structures

    Shunsuke Mori, ShogoHatayama, and Yuji Sutou, “Phase control in polymorphic transformationbased nonvolatile memory devices for reliable data reading in X-point structures”, Nanoscale 17, no. 42, (2025): 24627–24636

    2025

  28. [28]

    Crystal symmetry selected pure spin photocurrent in altermagnetic insulators

    Ruizhi Dong, Ranquan Cao, Dian Tan, and Ruixiang Fei, “Crystal symmetry selected pure spin photocurrent in altermagnetic insulators”, Phys. Rev. B 111, (2025): 195210

    2025

  29. [29]

    Symmetry- protected nodal planes and accidental nodal surfaces in mixed odd and even wave spin- momentum locking of relativistic altermagnets

    Xujia Gong, Amar Fakhredine, Sahar Izadi Vishkayi, and Carmine Autieri, “Symmetry- protected nodal planes and accidental nodal surfaces in mixed odd and even wave spin- momentum locking of relativistic altermagnets”, arXiv:2605.23438

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Wurtzite vs. rock-salt MnSe epitaxy: electronic and altermagnetic properties

    Michał J. Grzybowski, Carmine Autieri, Jaroslaw Domagala, Cezary Krasucki, Anna Kaleta, Sławomir Kret, Katarzyna Gas, Maciej Sawicki, Rafał Bożek, Jan Suffczyński, and Wojciech Pacuski, “Wurtzite vs. rock-salt MnSe epitaxy: electronic and altermagnetic properties”, Nanoscale 16, no. 12 (2024): 6259–6267

    2024

  31. [31]

    High Performance Room Temperature Multiferroic Properties of w-MnSe Altermagnet

    D. Bezzerga, I. Khan, and J. Hong, “High Performance Room Temperature Multiferroic Properties of w-MnSe Altermagnet”, Adv. Funct. Mater. 35 (2025): 2505813

    2025

  32. [32]

    Tsymbal, Competing antiferromagnetic phases in multiferroic wurtzite transition-metal chalcogenides, Phys

    Himanshu Mavani, Mohamed Elekhtiar, Kai Huang, Naafis Ahnaf Shahed, and Evgeny Y. Tsymbal, Competing antiferromagnetic phases in multiferroic wurtzite transition-metal chalcogenides, Phys. Rev. Mater. 10, (2026): 064408

    2026

  33. [33]

    Nadolny, J

    A.J. Nadolny, J. Sadowski, T. Story, W. Dobrowolski, M. Arciszewska, K. Swiatek,J. Kachniarz, J. Adamczewska, Electric, magnetic, and structural properties of SnMnTe layers grown by molecular beam epitaxy, Acta Phys. Pol. A 94, no. 3 (1998): 449. 19

    1998

  34. [34]

    Interface, bulk and surface structure of heteroepitaxial altermagnetic α-MnTe films grown on GaAs(111)

    Sara Bey, Maksym Zhukovskyi, Tatyana Orlova, Shelby Fields, Valeria Lauter, Haile Ambaye, Anton Ievlev, Steven P. Bennett, Xinyu Liu, and Badih A. Assaf, “Interface, bulk and surface structure of heteroepitaxial altermagnetic α-MnTe films grown on GaAs(111)”, Phys. Rev. Mater. 9, (2025): 074404

    2025

  35. [35]

    al., Programmable Phase Selection between Altermagnetic and Noncentrosymmetric Polymorphs of MnTe on InP via Molecular Beam Epitaxy”, ACS Appl

    An-Hsi Chen et. al., Programmable Phase Selection between Altermagnetic and Noncentrosymmetric Polymorphs of MnTe on InP via Molecular Beam Epitaxy”, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 18, no. 10 (2026): 15654

    2026

  36. [36]

    Coexistence of anomalous Hall effect and weak magnetization in a nominally collinear antiferromagnet MnTe

    K. P. Kluczyk, K. Gas, M. J. Grzybowski, P. Skupiński, M. A. Borysiewicz, T. Fąs, J. Suffczyński, J. Z. Domagala, K. Grasza, A. Mycielski, M. Baj, K. H. Ahn, K. Výborný, M. Sawicki, and M. Gryglas-Borysiewicz, “Coexistence of anomalous Hall effect and weak magnetization in a nominally collinear antiferromagnet MnTe”, Phys. Rev. B 110 (2024): 155201

    2024

  37. [37]

    Sawicki, W

    M. Sawicki, W. Stefanowicz, and A. Ney, Sensitive SQUID magnetometry for studying nanomagnetism, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 26, (2011): 064006

    2011

  38. [38]

    Practical limits for detection of ferromagnetism using highly sensitive magnetometry techniques

    L. M. C. Pereira, J. P. Araújo, M. J. V. Bael, K. Temst, and A. Vantomme, “Practical limits for detection of ferromagnetism using highly sensitive magnetometry techniques”, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 44, (2011): 215001

    2011

  39. [39]

    Ubiquity of ferromagnetic signals in common diamagnetic oxide crystals

    M. Khalid, A. Setzer, M. Ziese, P. Esquinazi, D. Spemann, A. Pöppl, and E. Goering, “Ubiquity of ferromagnetic signals in common diamagnetic oxide crystals”, Phys. Rev. B 81, (2010): 214414

    2010

  40. [40]

    A Simplified Method of the Assessment of Magnetic Anisotropy of Commonly Used Sapphire Substrates in SQUID Magnetometers

    K. Gas and M. Sawicki, “A Simplified Method of the Assessment of Magnetic Anisotropy of Commonly Used Sapphire Substrates in SQUID Magnetometers”, Materials 15, no. 23 (2022): 8532

    2022

  41. [41]

    Reliable magnetometry for antiferromagnets and thin films: Correcting substrate artifacts in Mn3Sn/MgO systems

    K. Gas and M. Sawicki, “Reliable magnetometry for antiferromagnets and thin films: Correcting substrate artifacts in Mn3Sn/MgO systems”, Phys. Rev. Appl. 25, (2026): 014012

    2026

  42. [42]

    Magnetic properties of semiconductors and substrates beyond diamagnetism studied by superconducting quantum interference device magnetometry

    A. Ney, “Magnetic properties of semiconductors and substrates beyond diamagnetism studied by superconducting quantum interference device magnetometry”, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 26, (2011): 064010. 20

    2011

  43. [43]

    Magnetic properties of wurtzite (Ga,Mn)As

    K. Gas, J. Sadowski, and M. Sawicki, “Magnetic properties of wurtzite (Ga,Mn)As”, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 533, (2021): 168012

    2021

  44. [44]

    Sample size, position, and structure effects on magnetization measurements using second-order gradiometer pickup coils

    P. Stamenov and J. M. D. Coey, “Sample size, position, and structure effects on magnetization measurements using second-order gradiometer pickup coils”, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 77, (2006): 015106

    2006

  45. [45]

    Stretching magnetism with an electric field in a nitride semiconductor

    D. Sztenkiel, M. Foltyn, G. P. Mazur, R. Adhikari, K. Kosiel, K. Gas, M. Zgirski, R. Kruszka, R. Jakiela, T. Li, A. Piotrowska, A. Bonanni, M. Sawicki, and T. Dietl, “Stretching magnetism with an electric field in a nitride semiconductor”, Nat. Commun. 7, (2016): 13232

    2016

  46. [46]

    Strongly geometrically frustrated magnets

    A.P. Ramirez, “Strongly geometrically frustrated magnets”, Annu. Rev. Matter. Sci. 24, (1994): 453-480

    1994

  47. [47]

    Zinc-blende MnTe: magnetic properties

    K. Ando, K. Takahashi, and T. Okuda, “Zinc-blende MnTe: magnetic properties”, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 104–107, (1992): 993-994

    1992

  48. [48]

    Neutron- diffraction studies of zinc-blende MnTe epitaxial films and MnTe/ZnTe superlattices: The effect of strain and dilution on a strongly frustrated fcc antiferromagnet

    T. Giebułtowicz, P. Kłosowski, N. Samarth, H. Luo, J.K. Furdyna, J.J. Rhyne, “Neutron- diffraction studies of zinc-blende MnTe epitaxial films and MnTe/ZnTe superlattices: The effect of strain and dilution on a strongly frustrated fcc antiferromagnet”, Phys. Rev. B 48, (1993): 12817

    1993

  49. [49]

    Magnetic Characterization of MBE Grown Cd1-xMnxTe Structures

    M. Sawicki, S. Koleśnik, T. Wojtowicz, G. Karczewski, E. Janik, M. Kutrowski, A. Zakrzewski, E. Dynowska, T. Dietl, and J. Kossut, “Magnetic Characterization of MBE Grown Cd1-xMnxTe Structures”, Acta. Phys. Polon. A, 87, no.1 (1995): 169-172

    1995

  50. [50]

    Komatsubara, M

    T. Komatsubara, M. Murakami, and E. Hirahara. Magnetic properties of manganese telluride single crystals. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 18, (1963): 356-364

    1963

  51. [51]

    Magnetic phase diagram of Mn3+xSn1−x epitaxial thin films: Extending the anomalous Hall effect to low temperatures via intrinsic alloying

    K. Gas, J.-Y. Yoon, Y. Sato, H. Kubota, P. Dłuzewski, S. Kret, J. Z. Domagala, Y. K. Edathumkandy, Y. Takeuchi, S. Kanai, H. Ohno, M. Sawicki, S. Fukami, “Magnetic phase diagram of Mn3+xSn1−x epitaxial thin films: Extending the anomalous Hall effect to low temperatures via intrinsic alloying”, Appl. Phys. Lett. Mater. 13, (2025): 041105

    2025

  52. [52]

    Theory of bound magnetic polarons in cubic and uniaxial antiferromagnets

    D. Bugajewski, C. Autieri, and T. Dietl, “Theory of bound magnetic polarons in cubic and uniaxial antiferromagnets”, Phys. Rev. B 112, (2025): L140403. 21 Phase-Controlled Epitaxy and Anisotropic Antiferromagnetism of Polar Wurtzite MnTe Janusz Sadowski *, Jaroslaw Z. Domagala, Piotr Dziawa, Anna Kaleta, Sania Dad, Maciej Wójcik, Dorota Janaszko, Sławomir...

    2025

  53. [53]

    Ratnikov, V., Kyutt, R., Shubina, T., Paskova, T., Valcheva, E., & Monemar, B. (2000). Bragg and Laue x-ray diffraction study of dislocations in thick hydride vapor phase epitaxy GaN films. J. Appl. Phys. 88, 6252-6259, (2000)

    2000

  54. [54]

    X-Ray Diffraction Peaks Due to Misfit Dislocations in Heteroepitaxial Structures

    V. M. Kaganer, R. Köhler, M. Schmidbauer, R. Opitz, and B. Jenichen, "X-Ray Diffraction Peaks Due to Misfit Dislocations in Heteroepitaxial Structures", Phys. Rev. B 55, 1793 (1997). Table S.T1. Fitting parameters for sample 053-25 (diffractometer Empyrean, 2-bonce hybrid monochromator) HKL #S1 scan type max position (deg) intensity max (cps)  FWHM (deg)...

    1997

  55. [55]

    Sawicki, W

    M. Sawicki, W. Stefanowicz, and A. Ney, Sensitive SQUID magnetometry for studying nanomagnetism, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 26, 064006 (2011)

    2011

  56. [56]

    L. M. C. Pereira, J. P. Araújo, M. J. V. Bael, K. Temst, and A. Vantomme, Practical limits for detection of ferromagnetism using highly sensitive magnetometry techniques, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 44, 215001 (2011)

    2011

  57. [57]

    Khalid, A

    M. Khalid, A. Setzer, M. Ziese, P. Esquinazi, D. Spemann, A. Pöppl, and E. Goering, Ubiquity of ferromagnetic signals in common diamagnetic oxide crystals, Phys. Rev. B 81, 214414 (2010)

    2010

  58. [58]

    Gas and M

    K. Gas and M. Sawicki, A Simplified Method of the Assessment of Magnetic Anisotropy of Commonly Used Sapphire Substrates in SQUID Magnetometers, Materials 15, 23 (2022)

    2022

  59. [59]

    Gas and M

    K. Gas and M. Sawicki, Reliable magnetometry for antiferromagnets and thin films: Correcting substrate artifacts in Mn3Sn/MgO systems, Phys. Rev. Appl. 25, 014012 (2026)

    2026

  60. [60]

    Ney, J.S

    A. Ney, J.S. Harris, S.S.P. Parkin, Magnetic properties of semiconductors and substrates beyond diamagnetism studied by superconducting quantum interference device magnetometry, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 26, 064010 (2011)

    2011

  61. [61]

    K. Gas, J. Sadowski, and M. Sawicki, Magnetic properties of wurtzite (Ga,Mn)As, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 533, 168012 (2021)

    2021

  62. [62]

    Stamenov and J

    P. Stamenov and J. M. D. Coey, Sample size, position, and structure effects on magnetization measurements using second-order gradiometer pickup coils, Review of Scientific Instruments 77, 015106 (2006)

    2006

  63. [63]

    Available online: https://www.cmr-direct.com/en/cmr- gevar-25ml?filter_name=ge%20varnis (accessed on 12 October 2022)., (n.d.)

    The GE/IMI 7031 Varnish Is Obtained from Cambridge Magnetic Refrigeration, Cambridge, CB5 8HR, UK. Available online: https://www.cmr-direct.com/en/cmr- gevar-25ml?filter_name=ge%20varnis (accessed on 12 October 2022)., (n.d.)

    2022

  64. [64]

    Sztenkiel, M

    D. Sztenkiel, M. Foltyn, G. P. Mazur, R. Adhikari, K. Kosiel, K. Gas, M. Zgirski, R. Kruszka, R. Jakiela, T. Li, A. Piotrowska, A. Bonanni, M. Sawicki, and T. Dietl, Stretching magnetism with an electric field in a nitride semiconductor, Nat. Commun. 7, 1 (2016)

    2016

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.