Giant Exfoliation Induced Magnetic Coercivity in Fe$_3$GaTe$_2$

Charudatta Pathak; Elton J. G. Santos; Lingrui Mei; Luis Balicas; PeiYu Cai; Sang-Eon Lee; Shyam Raj Karullithodi; Vadym Kulichenko; Yue Li

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Giant Exfoliation Induced Magnetic Coercivity in Fe$_3$GaTe$_2$

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Exfoliating Fe3GaTe2 to sub-100-nm thickness converts it from a soft ferromagnet to a hard magnet, with in-plane coercivity reaching ~7.4 T at 2 K and ~1 T at 300 K—up to 145× over bulk.

desk verdict Giant planar coercivity in exfoliated Fe3GaTe2 is a real, striking effect; the single-domain rotation mechanism is plausible but under-evidenced — still worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28828 v1 pith:2TOGCIBF submitted 2026-07-30 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Lingrui Mei , PeiYu Cai , Sang-Eon Lee , Yue Li , Shyam Raj Karullithodi , Vadym Kulichenko , Charudatta Pathak , Elton J. G. Santos

show 1 more author

Luis Balicas

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall

keywords vanderWaalsmagnetsFe3GaTe2coercivitymechanicalexfoliationsingle-domainStoner-WohlfarthmodelanomalousHalleffectrare-earth-free

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 claims that mechanical exfoliation alone—with no chemical modification—can turn the layered ferromagnet Fe3GaTe2 from a soft magnet with negligible coercivity into a hard magnet whose in-plane coercive field reaches roughly 7.4 T at 2 K and near 1 T at room temperature. The proposed origin is a crossover in magnetization reversal: bulk crystals switch by moving magnetic domains, while flakes thinner than about 100 nm approach the single-domain limit and reverse instead by quasi-coherent Stoner–Wohlfarth rotation governed by the material's intrinsic magnetocrystalline anisotropy (Ku1 ≈ 1.73 MJ/m3). A sympathetic reader would care because this would establish thickness as a dial for magnetic hardness in a rare-earth-free, layer-stackable material, with concrete relevance for spintronic memory and domain-wall devices. The paper also argues against alternative explanations—exfoliation-induced disorder, strain, or shape anisotropy—using the anisotropy of the enhancement, anomalous Hall scaling, and micromagnetic simulations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Stoner–Wohlfarth coherent-rotation model applied to a single-domain flake, together with the thickness-independent intrinsic uniaxial anisotropy Ku1 ≈ 1.73 MJ/m3 extracted from hard-axis saturation fields. In this picture, the in-plane saturation field measures the anisotropy field μ0HK ≈ 7.35 T, which sets the scale for the giant planar coercivity, while the out-of-plane coercivity is set by nucleation at sparse weak spots, explaining the asymmetry between the two field directions. The micromagnetic simulations use Mumax3 with exchange, anisotropy, DMI, and saturation magnetization parameters derived from experiment, and reproduce the anomalous Hall loops only when

What would settle it

Image magnetic domains in a ~50-nm-thick Fe3GaTe2 flake during an in-plane field sweep at low temperature: the single-domain model predicts a sharp, coherent reversal near 7 T with no intermediate multi-domain states, whereas domain-wall pinning would show labyrinthine domains and earlier, stepwise reversal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that exfoliated Fe3GaTe2 flakes with thicknesses up to about 100 nm display planar coercive fields up to μ0Hc ≈ 7.4 T at 2 K and ≈1–3 T at 300 K—25 to 145 times larger than in bulk crystals—while the out-of-plane coercivity increases by a more modest factor. The authors attribute this giant enhancement not to exfoliation-induced disorder, strain, or shape anisotropy, but to a crossover to the single-domain limit, where magnetization reversal proceeds by quasi-coherent Stoner–Wohlfarth rotation controlled by the intrinsic anisotropy constant Ku1 ≈ 1.73 MJ/m3, which they show is thickness-independent. Micromagnetic simulations reproduce the experimental saturation fiel

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that exfoliation does not introduce structural disorder—stacking faults, strain, or local anisotropy variations—that could themselves pin domain walls and explain the coercivity enhancement; the authors' only direct structural evidence is a single selected-area electron diffraction pattern on one flake, and they explicitly note that a more complete structural analysis is needed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At room temperature, in-plane coercivity of exfoliated flakes approaches 1 T, comparable to commercial Nd2Fe14B and Sm2Co17 magnets, in a rare-earth-free compound.
The maximum energy product of a 70-nm flake is estimated at (BH)max ≈ 2 kJ/m3, over two orders of magnitude below sintered NdFeB magnets, so the material is not a candidate for bulk permanent-magnet applications.
The coercivity enhancement is largely independent of flake thickness between 20 and 100 nm, ruling out a simple surface-anisotropy or interface effect and pointing to a volume-driven single-domain crossover.
In the single-domain regime, the in-plane anisotropy field μ0HK ≈ 7.35 T sets an upper bound on coercivity for the IP direction, while the lower c-axis coercivity is attributed to nucleation at sparse weak spots.
The material's layered structure and clean interfaces suit it for van der Waals heterostructures where large in-plane coercivity stabilizes magnetization against stray fields and crosstalk.

Reading between the lines

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

If the volume-exclusion mechanism is the whole story, coercivity should depend on flake lateral area rather than thickness once below the single-domain threshold—a testable prediction the paper does not make explicitly.
The authors' own caveat that a single selected-area diffraction pattern is insufficient suggests that a systematic structural survey of many exfoliated flakes (e.g., by scanning transmission electron microscopy) would be the quickest way to check whether hidden stacking faults contribute.
The same thickness-engineering route might apply to other high-anisotropy van der Waals ferromagnets, potentially generalizing a rare-earth-free hardening strategy across a family of compounds.
The paper's distinction between electronic disorder (which transport sees) and magnetic nucleation sites (which coercivity senses) implies that measurements like residual resistivity or anomalous Hall conductivity cannot be used to predict magnetic hardness in these materials.

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, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First, the key result: exfoliating Fe3GaTe2 to 20–100 nm raises planar coercivity to ~7.4 T at 2 K and ~1–3 T at 300 K, 25–145× over bulk. That looks solid. The Hall measurements are direct, repeat across several flakes, thickness has no obvious correlation, and the bulk comparison is apples-to-apples. The angle-resolved data showing a steep rise in Hc as the field approaches the plane, and the butterfly loops at ±0.5–1°, are new and interesting. The authors also deserve credit for computing (BH)max and admitting it is ~200× below commercial permanent magnets, so they do not oversell the application story.

The soft spots are all in the mechanism section. The single-domain Stoner–Wohlfarth claim rests on Ku1 derived from the hard-axis saturation field via the SW relation, and the simulation then reproduces that same saturation field. That is a fitting success, not a prediction. The pure in-plane story exists only in simulation; the experimental "in-plane" number is measured at ±0.5–1° tilt, where a small c-axis component breaks symmetry. That is a legitimate measurement asymmetry, but the headline should not read as θ = 0 until someone actually measures it or shows the tilt is innocent.

The bigger issue: exfoliation-induced pinning. The one SADP on one flake is not enough to exclude stacking faults or strain, and the authors themselves say "a more complete and detailed structural analysis is needed." The conductivity correlation arguments are reasonable but cannot rule out localized magnetic defects, as the authors acknowledge when distinguishing electronic disorder from sparse nucleation sites. The defect model also only brings the OOP coercivity down to 2.0 T, not the observed 0.46 T, so Brown's paradox is averted qualitatively, not quantitatively.

None of this kills the paper. The experimental enhancement is the contribution, and it stands. The mechanism is plausible and framed with appropriate caveats — they explicitly say domain imaging is essential and defer it. For a strong journal, I would ask them to soften the "in-plane" language to "near-planar," present the SW fit as a fit rather than independent validation, and more clearly label the mechanism as inferred. As is, this is a solid, honest experimental paper that deserves a serious referee, not a desk rejection. I would send it out.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a large enhancement of the coercive field in exfoliated Fe3GaTe2 flakes (20-100 nm thick) relative to bulk crystals. At T=2 K the near-planar coercivity reaches approximately 7.4 T, and at 300 K values of 1-3 T are reported, which the authors compare to commercial hard magnets. The enhancement is attributed to a crossover from multidomain reversal in bulk to quasi-coherent Stoner-Wohlfarth rotation in the single-domain limit of thin flakes, governed by the intrinsic anisotropy Ku1 ~ 1.73 MJ/m3. The authors support this interpretation with angular-dependent Hall measurements, anomalous Hall conductivity scaling, and micromagnetic simulations using Mumax3. They also explicitly note a small maximum energy product and defer direct domain imaging to future work.

Significance. If the single-domain interpretation is correct, the observation is significant for van der Waals magnetism and spintronics: it demonstrates a thickness-controlled route to hard-magnet-like coercivity without chemical modification, with a material that retains Curie temperatures above 350 K. The experimental dataset is valuable: direct transport measurements, systematic temperature and angle dependence, a data repository link, and open-source simulation tools are provided. The authors also deserve credit for candidly stating limitations, including the need for more structural analysis and for domain imaging to validate the simulations. However, the central mechanism claim currently rests on indirect evidence and contains a partially circular parameter derivation, so the uniqueness of the coherent-rotation explanation is not yet established.

major comments (4)

[Results, Fig. 2 and text near 'for θ = ±0.5o and ±1o'] The reported 'in-plane' coercivities are not measured at θ=0, but at θ=±0.5° to ±1°. At θ=0 the anomalous Hall response vanishes by symmetry, so a coercivity is not defined for this geometry. Thus μ0Hc^ab is a near-planar switching field, not a true in-plane coercivity. The simulation in Fig. 5b also uses a 1° tilt. The comparison to hard magnets and the abstract's 'in-plane fields' should be reworded to 'near-planar fields' and the angle dependence of the reported values should be quantified.
[Micromagnetic Simulations, Fig. 5a and SI 'Derivation of Magnetic Anisotropy'] Ku1 = 1.732x10^6 J/m3 is derived from the hard-axis saturation field μ0H_sat ~ 7.35 T via the Stoner-Wohlfarth relation, and Fig. 5a then reports that the simulation reproduces this same saturation field. The agreement in Fig. 5a is therefore partly by construction. An out-of-sample test is needed, e.g., quantitative prediction of the angular dependence in Fig. 2, the butterfly-loop width and shape, or the temperature dependence using independently measured K(T) and Ms(T).
[Results, Fig. S1, Fig. 4 and Fig. S5] The claim that exfoliation-induced disorder/pinning plays a negligible role is not uniquely established. The only structural evidence is one SADP on one flake (Fig. S1), and the authors state that 'A more complete and detailed structural analysis is needed to clarify this point.' The anomalous Hall conductivity arguments probe electronic disorder, but the manuscript itself argues that electronic disorder is distinct from sparse magnetic nucleation sites. Therefore the absence of correlation between Hc and σxx does not rule out orientation-dependent domain-wall pinning, which could also produce Hc^ab >> Hc^c. Direct domain imaging or a quantitative nucleation/pinning model is required.
[Micromagnetic Simulations, Fig. 5d] The engineered 50-nm cylinder defect with β=0.1 lowers the simulated OOP coercivity to ~2.0 T, while the experimental value is ~0.46 T (Fig. 2d, Fig. 3a). The factor-of-4 discrepancy is not discussed as a quantitative failure, yet the text says the model 'successfully lowered' the nucleation field. In addition, the defect geometry and β value are ad hoc, with no independent evidence connecting them to the actual flakes. This weakens the simulation's support for the claim that IP coercivity remains intrinsic while OOP reversal is defect-controlled.

minor comments (6)

[Fig. 2e caption] The caption says 'Clear blue trace corresponds to θ=0°' but the text refers to a 'blue trace' for θ=+1° and a 'black trace' for θ=-1°. The color coding is unclear and should be corrected.
[Throughout] Use 'near-planar' or 'nearly in-plane' instead of 'in-plane' when referring to the measured coercivities, since all transport measurements are at finite θ.
[Abstract and Fig. 1d] The phrase 'for in-plane fields' at room temperature should specify the small but nonzero tilt used in the measurement.
[Introduction, paragraph beginning 'Upon exfoliation'] The sentence comparing bulk μ0Hc^ab at 2 K with flake μ0Hc^ab at 300 K mixes temperature and sample; please give the bulk value at the same temperature or clarify.
[Micromagnetic Simulations] The statement that simulations 'ruled out' polycrystalline Voronoi tessellation and skyrmionic textures is not accompanied by any shown simulation or quantitative calculation. Either provide the results or remove the claim.
[Fig. 5c] The temperature-dependent scaling of K(T), Ms(T), and A_ex is not described in detail. Please specify which quantities are taken from experiment and which are fitted, so the reader can judge whether the agreement is meaningful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the hard-axis saturation field is reproduced from the same Stoner-Wohlfarth fit that produced Ku1; tilted-field butterfly loops provide independent support, so the central mechanism is not fully forced.

fitted input called prediction [Micromagnetic Simulations section, Fig. 5a; SI 'Derivation of Magnetic Anisotropy for Exfoliated and Bulk Systems' (Eq. μ0HK = 2Ku1/Msat)]
"We derived the intrinsic magnetocrystalline anisotropy constants Ku1 by fitting the experimental hard-axis saturation fields μ0Hsat to the Stoner–Wohlfarth model. ... Therefore, this high anisotropy parameter was used in our simulations to describe the system. ... a) Hard-axis (in-plane) hysteresis loops comparing the simulated exfoliated system (blue line) with experimental data (red line). The simulation assumes a high intrinsic anisotropy Ku1 = 1.732 x 10^6 J/m3, showing excellent agreement with the high saturation field μ0Hsat ~ 7.5 T observed experimentally."

Ku1 is defined through the very relation μ0HK = 2Ku1/Msat using the measured hard-axis saturation field Hsat (or equivalently from the SW fit of the same hard-axis curves). Feeding that Ku1 into the simulation necessarily returns the same Hsat; the 'excellent agreement' is therefore an in-sample consistency check, not an independent prediction, and cannot by itself confirm coherent-rotation reversal. The non-circular predictive content lies elsewhere, i.e., in the tilted-field butterfly-loop shape and the angular dependence of Hc.

full rationale

Most of the measured content is not circular: the large coercivity enhancement is a direct transport observation, and the angular dependence of Hc plus the tilted-field butterfly loops are quantitative features that the micromagnetic simulation reproduces without fitting those loop shapes. The one clear reduction-by-construction is the hard-axis saturation field: Ku1 is fit from Hsat via μ0HK = 2Ku1/Msat, and the simulation then 'reproduces' Hsat using that same Ku1. This is a fitted input called a reproduction/agreement, so it cannot validate the anisotropy or the reversal mechanism. The central mechanism is nevertheless not forced: the butterfly-loop shape under 1° tilt is an emergent, falsifiable prediction that matches experiment, giving the paper independent content. The more serious weakness is evidential rather than circular: only one SADP on one flake is presented, and the authors explicitly defer domain imaging, saying 'Visualization of magnetic domains as a function of crystal thickness, temperature, magnetic field strength, and field orientation—followed by detailed analysis—will be essential to validate our micromagnetic simulations.' An additional internal inconsistency—the main text states that the effective anisotropy increases considerably upon exfoliation, while SI Fig. S2 concludes 'we do not detect any evolution of K as a function of sample thickness'—undermines the 'increased effective anisotropy' phrasing but is not itself circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found; self-citations (e.g., Refs. 13, 24, 42) are contextual. Score 5 reflects one partial fitted-input-called-prediction step, with the central claim retaining substantial independent, falsifiable support.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central model relies on Ku1 fitted to the same saturation field used for validation, an ad hoc defect to lower OOP coercivity, the unverified single-domain assumption, and the assumption that exfoliation does not alter structure/disorder. Measured inputs (Msat, bulk Ms calibration) are experimental values, not free parameters, but the calibration of AHE to Ms is an assumption.

free parameters (4)

Ku1 (first-order uniaxial anisotropy) = 1.732e6 J/m3
Obtained by fitting μ0H_sat ≈ 7.35 T to Stoner-Wohlfarth relation μ0H_K = 2Ku1/M_s; used in all micromagnetic simulations and effectively sets the simulated IP switching field (Fig. 5a-c).
Defect cylinder parameters (d, area fraction, β) = d = 50 nm; 3% of area; β = 0.1
Chosen ad hoc in the Brown's-paradox simulation to lower the OOP nucleation field from 7.5 T to ~2.0 T; the experimental OOP coercivity is 0.46 T, so the choice is not quantitatively matched.
Temperature scaling of K(T), Ms(T) = not specified
Used to produce Fig. 5c ('phenomenological scaling' of magnetic parameters); the exact scalings are not stated, so they are effectively free/assumed.
Exchange stiffness A_ex = 10e-12 J/m
Input material parameter (likely from literature/assumption); affects domain wall energy and nucleation, not independently measured here.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Stoner-Wohlfarth coherent-rotation model applies to the exfoliated flakes at all temperatures
Used to extract K from Hall response (Fig. S2) and to interpret reversal mechanism; not independently verified by domain imaging.
domain assumption The in-plane hard-axis saturation field μ0H_sat measures the intrinsic magnetocrystalline anisotropy via μ0H_K = 2Ku1/Ms
Central calibration assumption for Ku1; invoked in SI derivation and simulations.
domain assumption Anomalous Hall resistivity ρxy is proportional to the out-of-plane magnetization Mz and saturates at the bulk Ms (~2.1 μB/Fe)
Used to convert AHE signals to magnetization estimates in Fig. S6 and to compare with bulk magnetometry.
ad hoc to paper Exfoliated flakes are in the single-domain limit and contain no nucleation sites unless explicitly modeled
Central premise of the explanation; no direct imaging evidence; authors defer domain visualization to future work.
domain assumption Exfoliation does not introduce structural disorder (stacking faults, mosaicity) or significant strain
Supported by a single SADP (Fig. S1); authors state 'A more complete and detailed structural analysis is needed to clarify this point.'
domain assumption Material parameters A_ex, DMI, and damping α taken from prior literature are valid for exfoliated flakes
Exchange stiffness A_ex = 10e-12 J/m, DMI = 1.07e-3 J/m2, α = 0.1 are inputs to Mumax3; not measured in this study.
domain assumption Shape anisotropy is negligible for planar coercivity (Nx = Ny ≈ 0, Nz ≈ 1)
The authors argue sample geometry (t ≤ 100 nm, lateral ~10 μm) makes planar demagnetization factors ~0; no direct measurement provided.

invented entities (2)

Sparse localized magnetic nucleation sites in bulk (weakest-link defects)
purpose: Explain why bulk Fe3GaTe2 is soft while exfoliated flakes are hard; these defects are statistically excluded by volume reduction.
No direct observation; introduced to reconcile Brown's paradox and the absence of correlation between coercivity and conductivity.
Engineered 50-nm cylinder defect with anisotropy reduced to βKu1
purpose: Demonstrate that OOP reversal is nucleation-driven at a weak spot, resolving Brown's paradox in the simulation.
Ad hoc simulation element chosen to lower simulated OOP coercivity; quantitative match with experiment is not achieved (2.0 T vs 0.46 T).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Giant Exfoliation Induced Magnetic Coercivity in Fe$_3$GaTe$_2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2TOGCIBF

@misc{pith2026260728828,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Giant Exfoliation Induced Magnetic Coercivity in Fe$_3$GaTe$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2TOGCIBF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28828}
}

abstract

Permanent magnets with strong anisotropy and high coercivity underpin modern information and energy technologies, yet rare-earth-free alternatives remain limited. Here, we show that thickness engineering via mechanical exfoliation induces hard magnetic behavior in the van der Waals ferromagnet Fe$_3$GaTe$_2$. Bulk crystals exhibit Curie temperatures above 350 K but negligible room-temperature coercivity. When thinned below 100 nm, the coercive field is dramatically enhanced, reaching nearly 1 T at room temperature for in-plane fields which is comparable to values of conventional hard magnets. Micromagnetic analysis reveals a crossover in magnetization reversal from domain-mediated processes in bulk samples to quasi-coherent rotation in thin flakes, driven by increased effective anisotropy and suppressed domain formation. This thickness-dependent transition enables tuning of magnetic hardness without chemical modification. Combined with high saturation magnetization and robust room-temperature performance, Fe$_3$GaTe$_2$ emerges as a promising rare-earth-free material for spintronic applications. Its layered structure further allows integration into van der Waals heterostructures, where large in-plane coercivity can stabilize magnetic states against perturbations and interlayer coupling, offering potential for high-density nonvolatile memory and domain-wall-based devices.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references

[1]

a)J. F. Herbst, Rev. Mod. Phys. 1991, 63, 819; b)R. W. McCallum, L. H. Lewis, R. Skomski, M. J. Kramer, I. E. Anderson, in Annu. Rev. Mater., V ol. 44 (Ed: D. R. Clarke), 2014

1991
[2]

F. Liu, Y . L. Hou, S. Gao, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014, 43, 8098

2014
[3]

J. Cui, M. Kramer, L. Zhou, F. Liu, A. Gabay, G. Hadjipanayis, B. Balasubramanian, D. Sellmyer, Acta Mater. 2018, 158, 118

2018
[4]

Gibertini, M

a)M. Gibertini, M. Koperski, A. F. Morpurgo, K. S. Novoselov, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2019, 14, 408; b)Q. H. Wang, A. Bedoya -Pinto, M. Blei, A. H. Dismukes, A. Hamo, S. Jenkins, M. Koperski, Y . Liu, Q. C. Sun, E. J. Telford, H. H. Kim, M. Augustin, U. V ool, J. X. Yin, L. H. Li, A. Falin, C. R. Dean, F. Casanova, R. F. L. Evans, M. Chshiev, A. M ishchenko, C....

2019
[5]

a)A. F. May, D. Ovchinnikov, Q. Zheng, R. Hermann, S. Calder, B. Huang, Z. Y . Fei, Y . H. Liu, X. D. Xu, M. A. McGuire, ACS Nano 2019, 13, 4436; b)G. J. Zhang, F. Guo, H. Wu, X. K. Wen, L. Yang, W. Jin, W. F. Zhang, H. X. Chang, Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 5067

2019
[6]

Ribeiro, G

a)M. Ribeiro, G. Gentile, A. Marty, D. Dosenovic, H. Okuno, C. Vergnaud, J. F. Jacquot, D. Jalabert, D. Longo, P. Ohresser, A. Hallal, M. Chshiev, O. Boulle, F. Bonell, M. Jamet, npj 2D Mater. Appl. 2022, 6, 10; b)S. X. Wu, Z. H. He, M. H. Gu, L. Z. Ren, J. B. Li, B. Deng, D. Wang, 29 X. H. Guo, W. J. Li, M. Y . Chen, Y . J. Chen, M. Meng, Q. L. Ye, B. Sh...

2022
[7]

Zhang, G

a)L. Zhang, G. X. Ni, J. J. He, G. Y . Gao, Phys. Rev. B 2025, 112, 064401; b)H. Z. Zhao, C. Yang, Y . D. Liu, Q. Q. Wang, Y . Y . Wu, Q. X. Mu, F. Y . Hou, T. Min, T. Li, Adv. Mater. 2025, 37; c)K. P. Ni, J. Y . Zhou, Y . Chen, H. H. Cheng, Z. Y . Cao, J. M. Guo, A. Soll, X. Y . Hou, L. Shan, Z. Sofer, M. M. Yang, Y . Yue, J. S. Xu, M. L. Tian, W. S. Gao...

2025
[8]

a)Z. F. Li, H. Zhang, G. Q. Li, J. T. Guo, Q. P. Wang, Y . Deng, Y . Hu, X. G. Hu, C. Liu, M. H. Qin, X. Shen, R. C. Yu, X. S. Gao, Z. M. Liao, J. M. Liu, Z. P. Hou, Y . M. Zhu, X. W. Fu, Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 1017; b)C. Liu, S. F. Zhang, H. Y . Hao, H. Algaidi, Y . C. Ma, X. X. Zhang, Adv. Mater. 2024, 36; c)S. Z. Jin, Y . T. Wang, H. T. Zheng, S. Z. Do...

2024

Show all 48 references

[9]

Kim, K.-W

K.-W. Kim, K.-W. Moon, N. Kerber, J. Nothhelfer, K. Everschor-Sitte, Phys. Rev. B 2018, 97, 224427

2018
[10]

X. Lv, H. Lv, Y . Huang, R. Zhang, G. Qin, Y . Dong, M. Liu, K. Pei, G. Cao, J. Zhang, Y . Lai, R. Che, Nature Communications 2024, 15, 3278

2024
[11]

a)Z. Li, H. Zhang, G. Li, J. Guo, Q. Wang, Y . Deng, Y . Hu, X. Hu, C. Liu, M. Qin, X. Shen, R. Yu, X. Gao, Z. Liao, J. Liu, Z. Hou, Y . Zhu, X. Fu, Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 1017; b)R. Saha, H. L. Meyerheim, B. Göbel, I. Mertig, S. S. P. Parkin, npj Spintronics 2024, 2, 21; c)C....

2024
[12]

X. Lv, H. Lv, Y . Huang, R. Zhang, G. Qin, Y . Dong, M. Liu, K. Pei, G. Cao, J. Zhang, Y . Lai, R. Che, Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 3278

2024
[13]

S. E. Lee, Y . Li, Y . Lee, W. K. Brown, P. Cai, J. Yun, C. Lee, A. Moon, L. R. Mei, J. Kim, Y . Xin, J. A. Borchers, T. W. Heitmann, M. Frontzek, W. D. Ratcliff, G. T. McCandless, J. Y . Chan, E. J. G. Santos, J. Kim, C. M. Phatak, V . Kulichenko, L. Balicas, ACS Nano 2025, 19, 28702

2025
[14]

Y . Ji, S. Yang, H.-B. Ahn, K.-W. Moon, T.-S. Ju, M.-Y. I m , H .-S. Han, J. Lee, S.- y. Park, C. Lee, K.-J. Kim, C. Hwang, Adv. Mater. 2024, 36, 2312013

2024
[15]

W. Jin, G. Zhang, H. Wu, L. Yang, W. Zhang, H. Chang, Nanoscale 2023, 15, 5371

2023
[16]

W. Jin, G. Zhang, H. Wu, L. Yang, W. Zhang, H. Chang, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2023, 15, 36519

2023
[17]

H. Yin, P. Zhang, W. Jin, B. Di, H. Wu, G. Zhang, W. Zhang, H. Chang, CrystEngComm 2023, 25, 1339

2023
[18]

X. Tang, J. Li, H. Sepehri-Amin, A. Bolyachkin, A. Martin-Cid, S. Kobayashi, Y . Kotani, M. Suzuki, A. Terasawa, Y . Gohda, T. Ohkubo, T. Nakamura, K. Hono, NPG Asia Mater. 2023, 15, 50

2023
[19]

Sepehri -Amin, J

H. Sepehri -Amin, J. Thielsch, J. Fischbacher, T. Ohkubo, T. Schrefl, O. Gutfleisch, K. Hono, Acta Mater. 2017, 126, 1

2017
[20]

J. F. Herbst, Rev. Mod. Phys. 1991, 63, 819. 30

1991
[21]

M. Jang, S. Lee, F. Cantos-Prieto, I. Kosic, Y . Li, A. R. C. McCray, M. H. Jung, J. Y . Yoon, L. Boddapati, F. L. Deepak, H. Y . Jeong, C. M. Phatak, E. J. G. Santos, E. Navarro-Moratalla, K. Kim, Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 5925

2024
[22]

E. C. Stoner, E. P. Wohlfarth, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 1948, 240, 599

1948
[23]

Algaidi, C

H. Algaidi, C. Zhang, C. Liu, Y . Ma, D. Zheng, P. Li, X. Zhang, APL Mater. 2025, 13

2025
[24]

S.-E. Lee, M. Park, W. K. Brown, V . Kulichenko, Y . Xin, S. H. Rhim, C. Hwang, J. Kim, G. T. McCandless, J. Y . Chan, L. Balicas, Phys. Rev. B 2025, 111, 184438

2025
[25]

Onoda, N

a)S. Onoda, N. Sugimoto, N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006, 97, 126602; b)S. Onoda, N. Sugimoto, N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. B 2008, 77, 165103

2006
[26]

Y . Tian, L. Ye, X. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2009, 103, 087206

2009
[27]

Karplus, J

R. Karplus, J. M. Luttinger, Phys. Rev. 1954, 95, 1154

1954
[28]

C. Liu, S. Zhang, H. Hao, H. Algaidi, Y . Ma, X.-X. Zhang, Adv. Mater. 2024, 36, 2311022

2024
[29]

Z. Fei, B. Huang, P. Malinowski, W. Wang, T. Song, J. Sanchez, W. Yao, D. Xiao, X. Zhu, A. F. May, W. Wu, D. H. Cobden, J.-H. Chu, X. Xu, Nat. Mater. 2018, 17, 778

2018
[30]

L. Néel, J. Phys. Radium 1954, 15, 225

1954
[31]

MacNeill, G

D. MacNeill, G. M. Stiehl, M. H. D. Guimaraes, R. A. Buhrman, J. Park, D. C. Ralph, Nat. Phys. 2017, 13, 300

2017
[32]

Chang, J

C.-Z. Chang, J. Zhang, X. Feng, J. Shen, Z. Zhang, M. Guo, K. Li, Y . Ou, P. Wei, L.- L. Wang, Z.-Q. Ji, Y . Feng, S. Ji, X. Chen, J. Jia, X. Dai, Z. Fang, S.-C. Zhang, K. He, Y . Wang, L. Lu, X.-C. Ma, Q.-K. Xue, Science 2013, 340, 167

2013
[33]

M. Mogi, M. Kawamura, R. Yoshimi, A. Tsukazaki, Y . Kozuka, N. Shirakawa, K. S. Takahashi, M. Kawasaki, Y . Tokura, Nat. Mater. 2017, 16, 516

2017
[34]

C. Gong, E. M. Kim, Y . Wang, G. Lee, X. Zhang, Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 2657

2019
[35]

J. M. D. Coey, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2002, 248, 441

2002
[36]

Iimori, Y

R. Iimori, Y . Kodani, S. Hu, T. Kimura, Adv. Sci. 2025, 12, e03530

2025
[37]

K. Zhu, M. Wang, Y . Deng, M. Tian, B. Lei, X. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 2024, 109, 104402

2024
[38]

N. Sato, K. Schultheiss, L. Körber, N. Puwenberg, T. Mühl, A. A. Awad, S. S. P. K. Arekapudi, O. Hellwig, J. Fassbender, H. Schultheiss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2019, 123, 057204

2019
[39]

T. Ono, Y . Nakatani, Appl. Phys. Express. 2008, 1, 061301

2008
[40]

Yamanouchi, A

a)M. Yamanouchi, A. Jander, P. Dhagat, S. Ikeda, F. Matsukura, H. Ohno, IEEE Magn. Lett. 2011, 2, 3000304; b)X. Zhao, B. Zhang, N. Vernier, X. Zhang, M. Sall, T. Xing, L. H. Diez, C. Hepburn, L. Wang, G. Durin, A. Casiraghi, M. Belmeguenai, Y . Roussigné, A. Stashkevich, S. M....

2011
[41]

Vansteenkiste, J

A. Vansteenkiste, J. Leliaert, M. Dvornik, M. Helsen, F. Garcia -Sanchez, B. V . Waeyenberge, AIP Adv. 2014, 4, 107133

2014
[42]

Jenkins, L

a)S. Jenkins, L. Rózsa, U. Atxitia, R. F. L. Evans, K. S. Novoselov, E. J. G. Santos, Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 6917; b)D. A. Wahab, M. Augustin, S. M. Valero, W. Kuang, S. Jenkins, E. Coronado, I. V . Grigorieva, I. J. Vera -Marun, E. Navarro -Moratalla, R. F. L. Evans, K. S. No...

2022
[43]

National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Tallahassee, Florida 32310, United States
[44]

Department of Physics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, United States
[45]

Institute for Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, School of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FD, U.K
[46]

Materials Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, Illinois 60439, United States
[47]

Higgs Centre for Theoretical Physics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FD, U.K
[48]

33 Figure S2| Thickness-independence of the magnetic anisotropy of Fe3GaTe2

Donostia International Physics Center (DIPC), 20018 Donostia-San Sebastián, Basque Country, Spain Figure S1| Electron diffraction from exfoliated Fe3GaTe2 crystals. 33 Figure S2| Thickness-independence of the magnetic anisotropy of Fe3GaTe2. Derivation of Magnetic Anisotropy f...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

a)J. F. Herbst, Rev. Mod. Phys. 1991, 63, 819; b)R. W. McCallum, L. H. Lewis, R. Skomski, M. J. Kramer, I. E. Anderson, in Annu. Rev. Mater., V ol. 44 (Ed: D. R. Clarke), 2014

1991

[2] [2]

F. Liu, Y . L. Hou, S. Gao, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014, 43, 8098

2014

[3] [3]

J. Cui, M. Kramer, L. Zhou, F. Liu, A. Gabay, G. Hadjipanayis, B. Balasubramanian, D. Sellmyer, Acta Mater. 2018, 158, 118

2018

[4] [4]

Gibertini, M

a)M. Gibertini, M. Koperski, A. F. Morpurgo, K. S. Novoselov, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2019, 14, 408; b)Q. H. Wang, A. Bedoya -Pinto, M. Blei, A. H. Dismukes, A. Hamo, S. Jenkins, M. Koperski, Y . Liu, Q. C. Sun, E. J. Telford, H. H. Kim, M. Augustin, U. V ool, J. X. Yin, L. H. Li, A. Falin, C. R. Dean, F. Casanova, R. F. L. Evans, M. Chshiev, A. M ishchenko, C....

2019

[5] [5]

a)A. F. May, D. Ovchinnikov, Q. Zheng, R. Hermann, S. Calder, B. Huang, Z. Y . Fei, Y . H. Liu, X. D. Xu, M. A. McGuire, ACS Nano 2019, 13, 4436; b)G. J. Zhang, F. Guo, H. Wu, X. K. Wen, L. Yang, W. Jin, W. F. Zhang, H. X. Chang, Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 5067

2019

[6] [6]

Ribeiro, G

a)M. Ribeiro, G. Gentile, A. Marty, D. Dosenovic, H. Okuno, C. Vergnaud, J. F. Jacquot, D. Jalabert, D. Longo, P. Ohresser, A. Hallal, M. Chshiev, O. Boulle, F. Bonell, M. Jamet, npj 2D Mater. Appl. 2022, 6, 10; b)S. X. Wu, Z. H. He, M. H. Gu, L. Z. Ren, J. B. Li, B. Deng, D. Wang, 29 X. H. Guo, W. J. Li, M. Y . Chen, Y . J. Chen, M. Meng, Q. L. Ye, B. Sh...

2022

[7] [7]

Zhang, G

a)L. Zhang, G. X. Ni, J. J. He, G. Y . Gao, Phys. Rev. B 2025, 112, 064401; b)H. Z. Zhao, C. Yang, Y . D. Liu, Q. Q. Wang, Y . Y . Wu, Q. X. Mu, F. Y . Hou, T. Min, T. Li, Adv. Mater. 2025, 37; c)K. P. Ni, J. Y . Zhou, Y . Chen, H. H. Cheng, Z. Y . Cao, J. M. Guo, A. Soll, X. Y . Hou, L. Shan, Z. Sofer, M. M. Yang, Y . Yue, J. S. Xu, M. L. Tian, W. S. Gao...

2025

[8] [8]

a)Z. F. Li, H. Zhang, G. Q. Li, J. T. Guo, Q. P. Wang, Y . Deng, Y . Hu, X. G. Hu, C. Liu, M. H. Qin, X. Shen, R. C. Yu, X. S. Gao, Z. M. Liao, J. M. Liu, Z. P. Hou, Y . M. Zhu, X. W. Fu, Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 1017; b)C. Liu, S. F. Zhang, H. Y . Hao, H. Algaidi, Y . C. Ma, X. X. Zhang, Adv. Mater. 2024, 36; c)S. Z. Jin, Y . T. Wang, H. T. Zheng, S. Z. Do...

2024