Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Direct observation of anisotropic exciton dispersion in the 2D semiconductor CrSBr

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CrSBr excitons show an intrinsically anisotropic dispersion: linear along the b-axis at 7.02 eV·Å and flat along the a-axis, traced to long-range electron–hole exchange.

desk verdict First momentum-resolved look at CrSBr excitons shows a beautifully anisotropic dispersion, but the headline slope depends on single-Gaussian fits to an unresolved doublet, so the quantitative claim needs a robustness check before I'd trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14712 v1 pith:2FDTKQBF submitted 2026-07-16 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Yiwen Song , Peiyi He , Weizhe Zhang , Wenyuan Ouyang , Wenjing Liu , Jinlong Du , Zuxin Chen , Jiuyu Sun
show 2 more authors
Peng Gao Yu Ye
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords excitondispersionmomentum-resolvedEELSCrSBranisotropictransportelectron-holeexchangeBethe-SalpeterequationvanderWaalsmagneticsemiconductorlayered
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 sets out to measure how the energy of an exciton in the layered magnetic semiconductor CrSBr changes with its center-of-mass momentum, and to explain why. Using momentum-resolved electron energy-loss spectroscopy with engineered defocus, the authors find a linear dispersion along the crystalline b-axis with a slope of 7.02 eV·Å, one of the largest reported, and almost no dispersion along the a-axis. They attribute this anisotropy to the long-range electron–hole exchange interaction, strengthened by strong out-of-plane confinement and directed by the transition dipole alignment along b, and they support it with finite-momentum Bethe–Salpeter calculations. If correct, CrSBr becomes a model system for studying anisotropic exciton transport and a testbed for engineering directional energy flow in low-symmetry layered semiconductors.

What carries the argument

The central instrument is a defocus-engineered momentum-resolved electron energy-loss spectroscopy (q-EELS) configuration in a scanning transmission electron microscope: by defocusing the sample, electrons at different incident angles land at different positions, yielding a momentum resolution of ~4×10⁻⁴ Å⁻¹ near the Brillouin zone center. The paper pairs this with finite-momentum Bethe–Salpeter equation (first-principles exciton) calculations and an analytical expression E(q) = E0 + A|q|cos²θ_q + parabolic terms, where the linear term arises from long-range electron–hole exchange and cos²θ_q encodes the transition dipole's directional selection. Along ΓY (the dipole axis) the linear term do

What would settle it

Repeat the q-EELS measurement at an energy resolution better than ~10 meV, or fit each momentum-resolved spectrum with two Gaussians for the X and X* resonances; if the isolated X peak does not reproduce the 7.02 eV·Å linear slope, then the single-exciton analysis is the source of the effect. Alternatively, map the full 2D dispersion and check whether the linear term obeys the predicted cos²θ_q angular dependence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that momentum-resolved electron energy-loss spectroscopy on multilayer CrSBr reveals an exciton dispersion that is linear along the crystalline b-axis (ΓY) with a slope of 7.02 eV·Å within |q| < 0.007 Å⁻¹, while remaining nearly dispersionless along the a-axis (ΓX). Finite-momentum Bethe–Salpeter calculations reproduce the linear branch, confirming its intrinsic origin. The authors identify the mechanism as the long-range electron–hole exchange interaction, enhanced by strong out-of-plane confinement of the exciton wavefunction and governed by the directional selection rules of the b-axis transition dipole moment. Comparative measurements across the magnetic phase transitio

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the energy-loss feature is a single 1s exciton peak at every momentum, even though reflectance fitting shows a second, weaker exciton (X*) only ~16 meV away; if that second resonance shifts or changes weight with momentum, the Gaussian-extracted peak positions could create an apparent linear dispersion rather than the true 1s branch.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CrSBr emerges as a model system for anisotropic exciton dynamics in low-symmetry layered semiconductors, with an intrinsic momentum scale set by the b-axis dipole.
  • The record slope of 7.02 eV·Å corresponds to an unusually large exciton group velocity along the b-axis, suggesting fast directional energy transport over mesoscopic length scales.
  • The near-flat dispersion along the a-axis implies exciton propagation is strongly suppressed in that direction, making CrSBr a platform for quasi-one-dimensional exciton behavior.
  • Because the dispersion is essentially unchanged between paramagnetic and antiferromagnetic phases, magnetic ordering does not appreciably renormalize the exciton center-of-mass motion, simplifying the interpretation of exciton dynamics in magnetic van der Waals semiconductors.
  • The combination of defocus-engineered q-EELS and Bethe–Salpeter calculations establishes a general route for measuring small-momentum exciton dispersions in anisotropic layered materials.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The angular factor cos²θ_q in the analytical model predicts that the linear slope should vanish continuously as the momentum direction rotates from ΓY to ΓX; a full 2D dispersion map would directly test this prediction and check whether additional directional exchange components exist.
  • If the linear dispersion is truly exchange-driven, its slope should depend on the degree of out-of-plane confinement; measuring the dispersion as a function of layer thickness (from monolayer to bulk-like flakes) would isolate this dependence and could guide tuning of exciton transport.
  • The apparent insensitivity to magnetic order suggests the exciton center-of-mass motion is decoupled from spin degrees of freedom at these momenta, but applying an external magnetic field to drive a spin-flop transition could reveal any hidden spin–exciton coupling that static measurements miss.
  • A spatially resolved photoluminescence experiment along the b-axis could look for signatures of the large group velocity, such as long diffusion lengths or ballistic propagation, providing a transport-level confirmation of the measured dispersion.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports momentum-resolved EELS measurements of the exciton dispersion in multilayer CrSBr. Using defocus-engineered q-EELS, the authors map the lowest exciton band along ΓY and ΓX and observe a strong in-plane anisotropy: a linear dispersion along ΓY with slope 7.02 eV Å within |q|<0.007 Å^{-1} and an essentially dispersionless response along ΓX. Finite-momentum BSE calculations reproduce the linear ΓY dispersion, and the authors attribute the effect to the long-range electron–hole exchange interaction enhanced by strong out-of-plane confinement and governed by the b-axis transition dipole. They also compare measurements at 100 K (AFM) and 300 K (PM) and report no resolvable change across the magnetic transition.

Significance. If the measurement is robust, this would be a valuable direct observation of a strongly anisotropic, linear exciton dispersion in a van der Waals magnetic semiconductor, with a group velocity larger than several previously studied low-dimensional systems. The BSE support is independent and not fitted to the measured slope, which strengthens the intrinsic-origin interpretation, and the analytical model in Eq. (2) provides a plausible microscopic mechanism. The magnetic-phase comparison is a useful additional piece of information. The main quantitative claim, however, rests on peak positions extracted from spectra that may contain two unresolved resonances, so the experimental evidence needs additional analysis before the central conclusion is fully established.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3, Fig. 3(b); Fig. 1(b)] The headline slope of 7.02 eV Å is obtained from single-Gaussian peak positions, but the same sample's zero-momentum response (Fig. 1b, Eq. 1) requires two b-polarized oscillators: 1s(X) at 1.360 eV and X* at 1.376 eV, with widths 16 and 20 meV, separated by only ~16 meV. The EELS energy resolution is ~18 meV, so X and X* are not individually resolved in the q-EELS maps. The manuscript states that X* is only 'a lineshape modulation,' but no q-dependent two-peak fit is reported and no calculated finite-q lineshape or spectral weight for X* is shown. If the relative strength or energy of X* changes with q, the centroid of a single fitted Gaussian can shift by tens of meV without any true 1s dispersion. Since the reported linear range |q|<0.007 Å^{-1} corresponds to a total shift of ~49 meV—about three times the X–X* splitting—this is a plausible artifact. Please provide a two-peak fit of t
  2. [§3, Fig. 3(b), Eq. (4)] The linear slope 7.02 eV Å is reported without a statistical uncertainty, and the experimental peak positions in Fig. 3(b) are shown without error bars. The linear-fit range is stated in the abstract as |q|<0.007 Å^{-1}, but the main-text description and Fig. 3(b) do not precisely define the fitted range, the number of points, or the residuals. The comparison with slopes in other materials ('largest reported group velocity') depends directly on this number. Please report the fit range, the slope uncertainty, and the peak-position uncertainties; also show how the result changes if the range is varied or if a quadratic term is included.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2(c,d)] The color scale and normalization of the momentum–energy maps are not defined in the main text. Please state what quantity is plotted (e.g., normalized loss intensity), the normalization procedure, and the color mapping.
  2. [§3, Fig. 3(a)] The Gaussian fitting procedure is not specified: no background model, energy window, or fit-function details are given. This information should appear in the main text or in the Supplemental Material, along with examples of the fits and residuals.
  3. [§4, Supplemental Figs. S3–S5] The claim that the dispersion is 'essentially unchanged' across the magnetic transition is supported only by qualitative comparison to supplemental figures. A quantitative bound on any change in slope or energy (e.g., within the uncertainty of the 100 K measurement) would make this claim more convincing.
  4. [§2, Eq. (1)] The statement that X* is 'a lineshape modulation rather than a distinct spectral peak' is presented without a criterion. Since the two oscillators overlap heavily, a constrained two-oscillator fit or a discussion of the fit degeneracy would clarify why this interpretation is preferred.
  5. [General] The Supplemental Material is referenced for computational details and additional figures, but is not included in the submitted manuscript. Please ensure all referenced supplementary material is available and contains the full BSE parameters, convergence tests, and the 300 K data analysis.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 7.02 eV·Å slope is measured independently, the BSE check is first-principles (not fitted to the slope), and the single self-citation (Ref. 36) supplies only a corroborated, non-load-bearing b-axis dipole premise.

  1. self citation load bearing [Fig. 1 discussion (zero-momentum optical response) and analytical-model section leading to Eq. (3)]
    "A pronounced in-plane anisotropy of the excitonic response in CrSBr is evident, consistent with the zero-momentum optical response framework established in our previous work[36]. ... In CrSBr, the transition dipole moment is aligned along the crystalline b axis (y direction), yielding cos2 θq = qy2/|q|2."

    Borderline flag: the b-axis dipole premise entering Eq. (3), which selects the ΓY-linear/ΓX-flat form, is sourced to the authors' own Ref. [36]. This is the paper's only author self-citation. It is NOT load-bearing: the same manuscript's Fig. 1 (b-axis resonances vs. featureless a-axis reflectance) independently establishes the b-axis dipole, external works (Refs. 24–29) corroborate it, and the q-EELS dispersion is obtained from independent measurements rather than from Ref. [36]. The central slope (7.02 eV·Å) does not reduce to the cited framework; the citation supports a corroborated premise, not the measured result.

full rationale

The central claim—an anisotropic exciton dispersion with a 7.02 eV·Å linear slope along ΓY—is an experimental result extracted from q-EELS spectra (Gaussian peak fitting on measured momentum–energy maps), not a quantity defined by any fitted input of the paper. The reflectance/TMM fit (Fig. 1) yields 1s(X) and X* resonances, but these are not used to generate the q-EELS dispersion; the proximity of X and X* (16 meV splitting vs. 18 meV EELS resolution) is a real lineshape-robustness risk for single-Gaussian extraction, but that is a correctness concern, not circularity—there is no step in which the fitted X/X* parameters reappear as the predicted dispersion. The finite-momentum BSE calculations are presented as first-principles (details in the Supplemental Material) with no statement of fitting to the measured slope; absent any indication of adjustment, 'reproduce' functions as an independent check rather than a re-statement of input. The analytical model Eq. (2) is taken from external prior work (Ref. [18], unrelated to the present authors) and is used interpretively, not to generate data. The only author self-citation (Ref. [36], zero-momentum anisotropy) is corroborated in-paper by Fig. 1 and externally by Refs. [24]–[29], so it is not load-bearing. External benchmark comparisons (MoS2, α-Nb3Cl8, hBN) further ground the claim outside the paper's fitted values, and the magnetic-phase comparison is a null result that introduces no circular step. Overall, no derivation step reduces to its own inputs; the flagged self-citation is minor and non-load-bearing, giving a score of 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard EELS theory, the exchange-interaction model from Ref. 18, the assumed b-axis dipole orientation, strong out-of-plane confinement of the exciton, and the single-peak interpretation of the EELS feature. Several oscillator and slope parameters come from fits.

free parameters (4)
  • Background dielectric constant ε_bg = 20
    Set in TMM fit of a-axis reflectance; enters the dielectric function used to interpret the loss.
  • 1s X oscillator parameters (ω, Γ, f) = 1.360 eV, 16 meV, 1.7 (eV)^2
    Fit to b-axis differential reflectance at 100 K.
  • X* oscillator parameters (ω, Γ, f) = 1.376 eV, 20 meV, 0.4 (eV)^2
    Second weaker resonance from the same reflectance fit.
  • Linear dispersion slope A = 7.02 eV Å
    Extracted from a linear fit to q-EELS peak positions; used as the quantitative measure of exchange strength. Not predicted from first principles in the main text.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math EELS intensity is proportional to the loss function Im[-1/ε(ω,q)]
    Used to justify q-EELS as a probe of exciton dispersion; standard in EELS theory.
  • domain assumption Long-range exchange gives a nonanalytic linear term E(q)=E0+A|q|cos²θ_q
    Taken from Ref. [18] and applied to CrSBr without re-derivation; central to the interpretation.
  • domain assumption Transition dipole moment is along the b-axis with negligible a-axis weight
    Based on polarization-resolved reflectance fits and prior work Ref. [36]; used to set cos²θ_q in Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption Exciton wavefunction is strongly confined within individual CrSBr layers with weak interlayer coupling
    Invoked to justify exchange enhancement in the multilayer sample; based on prior calculations Ref. [27].
  • ad hoc to paper The q-EELS feature is a single 1s exciton; X* is only a lineshape modulation
    Required for the single-Gaussian peak extraction; X and X* are separated by only ~16 meV at 18 meV resolution.
  • domain assumption Finite-momentum BSE calculations accurately describe the exciton dispersion
    Standard many-body method; details and convergence checks are only in the supplemental material, not in the main text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Direct observation of anisotropic exciton dispersion in the 2D semiconductor CrSBr." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2FDTKQBF

@misc{pith2026260714712,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Direct observation of anisotropic exciton dispersion in the 2D semiconductor CrSBr},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2FDTKQBF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14712}
}
abstract

We report momentum-resolved measurements of exciton dispersion in multilayer CrSBr using defocus-engineered electron energy-loss spectroscopy, supported by first-principles calculations. A pronounced in-plane anisotropy is observed, with the exciton exhibiting a linear dispersion along $\Gamma$Y within $\lvert \boldsymbol{q} \rvert$ < 0.007 \r{A}$^{-1}$, while remaining nearly dispersionless along $\Gamma$X. The slope reaches 7.02 eV \r{A}, among the largest reported in low-dimensional systems. The calculations reproduce the experimentally observed linear dispersion, confirming its intrinsic origin. We attribute the anisotropic dispersion to the long-range electron--hole exchange interaction, enhanced by strong out-of-plane confinement and governed by the directional selection rules of the transition dipole moment. Comparative measurements across the magnetic phase transition from the paramagnetic to the A-type antiferromagnetic state show that the dispersion remains essentially unchanged, indicating negligible coupling between exciton propagation and magnetic order. These results establish CrSBr as a model system for investigating anisotropic exciton dynamics in low-symmetry layered semiconductors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14712 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Polarization-resolved optical response and extracted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (b) illustrates the reciprocal-space configura￾tion of CrSBr, where the orthorhombic lattice defines two principal high-symmetry directions: ΓX (along the a axis) and ΓY (along the b axis). By adjusting the projector lens, the EELS slot aperture was aligned to selectively collect inelastically scattered electrons along these momentum directions, enabling direct mapping of exciton dispersion in momentum space. To enh… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Linear exciton dispersion in multilayer CrSBr near [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Frenkel, Physical Review37, 17 (1931)

    J. Frenkel, Physical Review37, 17 (1931)

    1931

  2. [2]

    G. H. Wannier, Physical Review52, 191 (1937)

    1937

  3. [3]

    R. J. Elliott, Physical Review108, 1384 (1957)

    1957

  4. [4]

    Habenicht, M

    C. Habenicht, M. Knupfer, and B. B¨ uchner, Physical Re- view B91, 245203 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    Ahmadi Heidari and M

    Z. Ahmadi Heidari and M. Knupfer, Physical Review B 111, 205205 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    J. J. Crochet, J. G. Duque, J. H. Werner, B. Lounis, L. Cognet, and S. K. Doorn, Nano letters12, 5091 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    Ghazaryan, M

    A. Ghazaryan, M. Hafezi, and P. Ghaemi, Physical Re- view B97, 245411 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    Palummo, M

    M. Palummo, M. Bernardi, and J. C. Grossman, Nano Letters15, 2794 (2015)

    2015

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Manolatou, H

    C. Manolatou, H. Wang, W. Chan, S. Tiwari, and F. Rana, Physical Review B93, 155422 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    H.-Y. Chen, V. A. Jhalani, M. Palummo, and M. Bernardi, Physical Review B100, 075135 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Wu and F

    F. Wu and F. Qu, Physical Review B91, 075310 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Z. Su, J. Mi, S. Yan, J. Li, S. Xue, Z. Tao, E. Wang, X. Shi, H. Lei, Z. Xu, J. Guo, and X. Zhu, Physical Re- view Letters136, 106502 (2026)

    2026

  5. [13]

    Cudazzo, F

    P. Cudazzo, F. Sottile, A. Rubio, and M. Gatti, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter27, 113204 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Altarelli and N

    M. Altarelli and N. Lipari, Physical Review B15, 4898 (1977)

    1977

  7. [15]

    Gatti and F

    M. Gatti and F. Sottile, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics88, 155113 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    Schuster, Y

    R. Schuster, Y. Wan, M. Knupfer, and B. B¨ uchner, Phys- 6 ical Review B94, 085201 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    D. Y. Qiu, T. Cao, and S. G. Louie, Physical review letters115, 176801 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    D. Y. Qiu, G. Cohen, D. Novichkova, and S. Refaely- Abramson, Nano letters21, 7644 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Cudazzo, L

    P. Cudazzo, L. Sponza, C. Giorgetti, L. Reining, F. Sot- tile, and M. Gatti, Physical review letters116, 066803 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Schuster, J

    R. Schuster, J. Trinckauf, C. Habenicht, M. Knupfer, and B. B¨ uchner, Physical Review Letters115, 026404 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    J. Hong, R. Senga, T. Pichler, and K. Suenaga, Physical review letters124, 087401 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    L. Y. Liu, S. Y. Woo, J. Wu, B. Hou, C. Su, and D. Y. Qiu, Nature Physics , 1 (2026)

    2026

  15. [23]

    E. J. Telford, A. H. Dismukes, K. Lee, M. Cheng, A. Wi- eteska, A. K. Bartholomew, Y.-S. Chen, X. Xu, A. N. Pasupathy, X. Zhu, C. R. Dean, and X. Roy, Advanced Materials32, 2003240 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    M. E. Ziebel, M. L. Feuer, J. Cox, X. Zhu, C. R. Dean, and X. Roy, Nano Letters24, 4319 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    F. Wu, I. Guti´ errez-Lezama, S. A. L´ opez-Paz, M. Gib- ertini, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. O. von Rohr, N. Ubrig, and A. F. Morpurgo, Advanced Materials34, 2109759 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Klein, B

    J. Klein, B. Pingault, M. Florian, M.-C. Heißenb¨ uttel, A. Steinhoff, Z. Song, K. Torres, F. Dirnberger, J. B. Curtis, M. Weile, A. Penn, T. Deilmann, R. Dana, R. Bushati, J. Quan, J. Luxa, Z. Sofer, A. Al´ u, V. M. Menon, U. Wurstbauer, M. Rohlfing, P. Narang, M. Lonˇ car, a...

    2023

  19. [27]

    N. P. Wilson, K. Lee, J. Cenker, K. Xie, A. H. Dismukes, E. J. Telford, J. Fonseca, S. Sivakumar, C. Dean, T. Cao, X. Roy, X. Xu, and X. Zhu, Nature Materials20, 1657 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    K. Lee, A. H. Dismukes, E. J. Telford, R. A. Wiscons, J. Wang, X. Xu, C. Nuckolls, C. R. Dean, X. Roy, and X. Zhu, Nano Letters21, 3511 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Sears, B

    J. Sears, B. Zager, W. He, C. Occhialini, Y. Shen, M. Lajer, J. Villanova, T. Berlijn, F. Yakhou-Harris, N. Brookes,et al., Physical Review Letters135, 146503 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    G¨ oser, W

    O. G¨ oser, W. Paul, and H. Kahle, Journal of magnetism and magnetic materials92, 129 (1990)

    1990

  23. [31]

    W. Liu, X. Guo, J. Schwartz, H. Xie, N. U. Dhale, S. H. Sung, A. L. N. Kondusamy, X. Wang, H. Zhao, D. Berman, R. Hovden, L. Zhao, and B. Lv, ACS Nano 16, 15917 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Fink, Advances in electronics and electron physics75, 121 (1989)

    J. Fink, Advances in electronics and electron physics75, 121 (1989)

    1989

  25. [33]

    Sturm, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Naturforschung A48, 233 (1993)

    K. Sturm, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Naturforschung A48, 233 (1993)

    1993

  26. [34]

    Yeh,Optical Waves in Layered Media(Wiley, New York, 1988)

    P. Yeh,Optical Waves in Layered Media(Wiley, New York, 1988)

    1988

  27. [35]

    Fujiwara,Spectroscopic Ellipsometry: Principles and Applications(John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2007)

    H. Fujiwara,Spectroscopic Ellipsometry: Principles and Applications(John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2007)

    2007

  28. [36]

    T. Wang, D. Zhang, S. Yang, Z. Lin, Q. Chen, J. Yang, Q. Gong, Z. Chen, Y. Ye, and W. Liu, Nature Commu- nications14, 5966 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    H. T. Do, M. Zhao, P. Li, Y. W. Soh, J. Rangaraj, B. Liu, T. Jiang, X. Zhang, J. Lu, P. Song, J. Teng, and M. Bosman, Nature Communications16, 5801 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Elgvin, F

    C. Elgvin, F. S. Hage, Ø. Prytz, K. Elyas, K. H¨ oflich, C. T. Koch, and H. C. Nerl, Physical Review Materials 10, 020201 (2026)

    2026

  31. [39]

    Midgley, Ultramicroscopy76, 91 (1999)

    P. Midgley, Ultramicroscopy76, 91 (1999)

    1999

  32. [40]

    Liu, Y.-T

    B. Liu, Y.-T. Zhang, R. Qiao, R. Shi, Y. Li, Q. Guo, J. Li, X. Li, L. Wang, J. Qi, S. Du, X. Ren, K. Liu, P. Gao, and Y.-Y. Zhang, Physical Review Letters131, 016201 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Toyozawa, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supple- ment12, 111 (1959)

    Y. Toyozawa, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supple- ment12, 111 (1959)

    1959

  34. [42]

    J. J. Thompson, S. Brem, M. Verjans, R. Schmidt, S. Michaelis de Vasconcellos, R. Bratschitsch, and E. Malic, 2D Materials9, 025008 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    ´Smiertka, M

    M. ´Smiertka, M. Ryga la, K. Posmyk, P. Peksa, M. Dyk- sik, D. Pashov, K. Mosina, Z. Sofer, M. van Schilfgaarde, F. Dirnberger, M. Baranowski, S. Acharya, and P. Plo- chocka, Nature Communications (2026)

    2026

  36. [44]

    Auerbach,Interacting Electrons and Quantum Mag- netism(Springer, New York, 1994)

    A. Auerbach,Interacting Electrons and Quantum Mag- netism(Springer, New York, 1994)

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.