Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

A nano-carbon route to rare earth free permanent magnetism

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A spin-dependent electric dipole at the Co/C60 interface creates a new form of magnetic anisotropy, pi-anisotropy, that pins magnetization without rare-earth elements.

desk verdict Well-controlled experiment with a genuinely new mechanism, but the quantitative anchor for pi-anisotropy is borrowed from another material and the key C60 rotation is inferred, so the paper earns publication as a hypothesis, not a proof. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02544 v3 pith:CFG6BR4A submitted 2019-08-07 physics.app-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Timothy Moorsom , Shoug Alghamdi , Sean Stansill , Emiliano Poli , Gilberto Teobaldi , Marijan Beg , Hans Fangohr , Matt Rogers
show 4 more authors
Zabeada Aslam Mannan Ali Bryan J Hickey Oscar Cespedes
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.app-phcond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 75.30.Gw75.60.Ej75.70.-i
keywords pi-anisotropymagneticcoercivityC60fullerenecobaltthinfilmmagneto-electriccouplingexchangebiastrainingrare-earth-freemagnetsmolecularspintronics
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

The paper claims that a single layer of C60 molecules on a cobalt thin film creates a new kind of magnetic anisotropy, which it calls pi-anisotropy, that pins the surface magnetization and raises coercivity to 1.5 T with an exchange-bias-like loop offset despite no antiferromagnet being present. Because the effect arises from the symmetry of the carbon–metal bond rather than from rare-earth elements, the authors argue it points toward carbon-based hard magnetic films. The enhanced pinning is lost after one demagnetization cycle, which they attribute to the C60 cages rotating from an asymmetric to a symmetric adsorption geometry under the torque exerted by the rotating magnetization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the spin-dependent electric dipole, defined as $\vec{P} = \sum_{i,j} A_{ij} (|S_i| |r_{ij}| \cos\theta_{ij})^2 \hat{r}_{ij}$, where the sum runs over all transition-metal–light-atom bonds at the interface, $S_i$ is the metal spin, $r_{ij}$ is the bond vector, $\theta_{ij}$ is the angle between spin and bond, and $A_{ij}$ is the magneto-electric coupling strength. In the HP adsorption geometry the symmetry is broken, so an in-plane rotation of the Co spins changes the magnitude of the out-of-plane dipole, and its interaction with the interfacial potential creates an electrostatic barrier that pins the surface magnetization; in the symmetric HH geometry the in-plane components cancel, removing the pinning and explaining the single-cycle loss of the effect.

What would settle it

Measure the orientation of interfacial C60 molecules during the first hysteresis sweep, for example with in-situ STM, surface infrared or Raman spectroscopy, or low-energy electron diffraction. If the cages do not rotate from HP to HH when the coercivity collapses, the pi-anisotropy mechanism is wrong. Alternatively, if a similarly offset loop with one-shot training persists in a system where molecular rotation is sterically blocked, the rotation-based explanation would also be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a spin-dependent electric dipole forms at the Co/C60 interface because C60 adsorbs with hexagon–pentagon (HP) symmetry, so the sum of the spin-dependent p–d hybrid polarizations does not cancel. Rotating the in-plane magnetization changes the out-of-plane dipole, and the interaction of that dipole with the work-function-induced interfacial potential adds a spin-dependent electrostatic term to the surface anisotropy, estimated at 10–100 meV. This barrier pins the surface spins, producing coercivity as high as 1.5 T and a loop asymmetry that mimics exchange bias. When the magneto-electric torque rotates the cage to the symmetric hexagon–hexagon (HH) configuration during the first demagnetization, the pinning disappears and the loop narrows to about 0.3 T. The paper argues that this one-shot training behavior is not conventional exchange bias, and supports the model with micromagnetic simulations, FORC analysis, transport measurements, and control experiments with C70 and with the C60 removed.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on C60 molecules actually rotating from the asymmetric HP configuration to the symmetric HH configuration during the first demagnetization, with that rotation removing the pinning; no measurement in the paper tracks the molecular orientation during the loop.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, a single molecular layer can act as a strong magnetic pinning layer, potentially replacing rare-earth-based exchange-bias layers and hard magnets in thin-film devices.
  • The predicted interfacial energy density of about 32 mJ/m2, roughly 15 times that of Co/IrMn, implies that molecular interfaces could produce exceptionally strong domain-wall pinning without antiferromagnetic order.
  • Because the critical temperature is limited by molecular rotation rather than by magnetic ordering, chemically locking or functionalizing the molecules, or choosing lower-symmetry cages, could raise the operating temperature toward room temperature.
  • The demonstration that loop asymmetry and one-shot training can occur without unidirectional anisotropy means that such loop features are not, by themselves, evidence of exchange bias.
  • Tuning the metal surface structure, as shown by the Ta seed-layer thickness window, can enhance the pi-anisotropy effect, suggesting that interface engineering can maximize coercivity and energy product.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The model implies that any metal–molecule interface with an asymmetric adsorption site and strong p–d hybridization should exhibit a magneto-electric torque; this could be tested by scanning tunneling microscopy under an in-plane magnetic field, where the HP-to-HH rotation should appear as an orientation change during the first hysteresis sweep.
  • Because the magnitude of the magneto-electric coupling $A_{ij}$ is borrowed from cobalt-ferrite, the quantitative estimate of the 10–100 meV barrier is uncertain; measuring the dipole change directly, for example by surface Kelvin-probe microscopy or torque magnetometry on a single adsorbed molecule, would sharpen the prediction.
  • The design rule suggested by the paper—use molecules with a rigid asymmetric adsorption configuration and a high rotational barrier—could be explored by computational screening of fullerene derivatives and other pi-conjugated molecules on Co and Fe surfaces, searching for room-temperature stability.
  • If the effect scales with the number of pinned interfaces, multilayer stacks of Co/C60 might multiply the energy product beyond the single-interface value; this is an untested extrapolation the paper does not make.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports that a 3 nm Co film capped with C60 exhibits coercivity up to 1.5 T and a loop asymmetry after field cooling, with the effect disappearing after a single demagnetization sweep. The authors attribute this to a new mechanism, 'pi-anisotropy,' arising from a spin-dependent electric dipole generated by asymmetric pi-d hybridization at the Co/C60 interface. They support this with SQUID magnetometry, FORC, AMR, control experiments (C70, solvent/UV removal of C60, Ta seed thickness), DFT calculations of adsorption and rotational barriers, and micromagnetic simulations. The key claim is that the dipole imposes an electrostatic barrier of 10-100 meV that pins surface magnetization, and that the C60 rotates from a high-symmetry HP to a symmetric HH configuration during the first sweep, removing the pinning and explaining the training-like behavior without unidirectional anisotropy.

Significance. If the mechanism is correct, this is a conceptually new form of interfacial magnetic anisotropy that could inform rare-earth-free permanent magnet design. The paper is strong on experimental phenomenology: the C60-specificity (not C70), the removal control, the Ta seed window, and the FORC/AMR evidence for a change in reversal mechanism after one sweep are convincing and well executed. The central theoretical mechanism, however, is not yet quantitatively anchored for Co/C60 because the magneto-electric coupling constant is unknown and the key estimate is imported from a different material. The manuscript is honest about this limitation, but as it stands the numerical claim (10-100 meV barrier) is an estimate, not a determination.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (5)] The central quantitative anchor for pi-anisotropy is missing. Eq. (5) defines the spin-dependent polarization through a magneto-electric coupling Aij, and the text states that Aij for Co/C60 is 'currently unknown.' The value that carries the argument—a spin-dependent dipole density change of ~1e-6 e/Å for a 90° spin rotation—is taken from cobalt ferrite (Ref. 23), not from a Co/C60 calculation or measurement. Since the same Aij governs both the proposed 10-100 meV barrier and the magneto-electric torque invoked to rotate C60, the one-shot training model inherits the same uncalibrated constant. The static adsorption dipole from DFT (3.79e-3 e/Å) is not the spin-dependent quantity that enters Eq. (5). The authors should provide a Co/C60-specific first-principles estimate of the spin-dependent dipole (or a direct experimental measure of the magneto-electric coupling) before the mechanism can be regarded as quantitatively established.
  2. [Section III and Appendix A (Fig. 3b)] The micromagnetic simulation is a fit, not a prediction. The interface anisotropy K = 27 MJ/m3 is chosen to match the measured coercivity, and K = 1 MJ/m3 for the second sweep is chosen to reproduce the reduced coercivity; the Methods state 'Values were chosen to match the simulated coercivity to experimental data.' Consequently, the simulated loop in Fig. 3b cannot validate the magnitude of the proposed interface anisotropy. It does illustrate that the proposed reversal mechanism (vertical domain wall for the first sweep, in-plane domains for the second) is consistent with the experimental loops, but the text's claim that the simulation 'replicates' the experiment overstates what a parameter-matched calculation can establish.
  3. [Section III (C60 rotation mechanism)] The explanation of the single-cycle loss of pinning relies on an inferred rotation of C60 from the HP to the HH configuration induced by the magneto-electric torque during the first demagnetization. No experimental measurement tracks the molecular orientation through the hysteresis cycle. The supporting evidence—the coincidence of the pinning transition temperature with bulk C60 rotational freezing and DFT barriers of 0.25 eV/40 meV—is circumstantial, and the 0.25 eV transition-state barrier actually shows that thermal rotation at low temperature is inactive unless the torque overcomes it. As a result, the manuscript does not exclude alternative interfacial changes (e.g., rehybridization, local oxidation, or Ta/Co intermixing) as the cause of the one-shot depinning. A direct in-situ probe of molecular orientation, or a falsifiable prediction of how the effect depends on molecular flexibility, is needed to support this load-bearing step.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II] The word 'tempature' appears in the text and should be 'temperature.'
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption reads 'two indentical' and should read 'two identical.'
  3. [Section III] There are typos 'signficicantly' and 'adsoprtion'; these should be 'significantly' and 'adsorption.'
  4. [Section IV] The exchange-spring interpretation is cited to Ref. 27 (Pike and Fernandez), which is a FORC methodology paper; a dedicated exchange-spring reference would be more appropriate.
  5. [Fig. 2a] The FORC density plots would be easier to interpret with explicit axis labels and a color scale bar, and the definition of the hysteron density normalization should be stated.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The micromagnetic 'replication' is a fit, not a prediction; the 10.8 meV pinning energy is a JA fit parameter compared with an uncalibrated barrier range. The central pi-anisotropy mechanism retains independent DFT and control-sample support.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III (micromagnetic simulation) and Appendix A (Methods)]
    "The antiferromagnetic interface anisotropy barrier is 27 MJ/m3. Values were chosen to match the simulated coercivity to experimental data. These simulations show coercivity of 1.5 T ... The full simulated loop replicates that observed experimentally despite the simulation having no unidirectional anisotropy."

    The surface-pinning anisotropy K = 27 MJ/m3 in the simulation is a free parameter adjusted so that the computed first-sweep coercivity equals the measured 1.5 T. The statement that the loop is 'replicated' is therefore a restatement of the fitting condition, not an independent prediction of pi-anisotropy. The second sweep is produced by manually lowering K to 1 MJ/m3 to encode the assumed C60 rotation/depinning, so the reduced coercivity and loss of vertical domain walls are also imposed inputs. The simulation can illustrate the model but cannot confirm it.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section III, paragraph following Eq. (5)]
    "The observed surface exchange energy density at 3 K is 10.8 meV and the thermal energy corresponding to the centre of the transition in figure 1b is 12.8 meV. ... The magnitude of the spin-dependent dipole is dependent on the magneto-electric coupling, Aij, of Co/C60, which is currently unknown. However, using example values for cobalt-ferrite gives a change in the spin dependent dipole density of approximately 1×10−6 e/Å ... This change in interfacial dipole density means that there is an electrostatic barrier of 10 - 100 meV preventing the surface magnetisation from rotating in-plane."

    The 10.8 meV 'observed surface exchange energy density' is the low-temperature pinning factor k(0) obtained by fitting the coercivity-temperature data with the Jiles-Atherton model (Eq. 1); it is a fit parameter, not an independent thermodynamic measurement. The 10-100 meV barrier is not computed for Co/C60 because Aij is stated to be unknown; the range is borrowed from cobalt-ferrite values and is wide enough that any k(0) in that decade would 'agree.' Comparing a fitted pinning factor with an uncalibrated, material-transferred estimate is consistency tuning, so this step does not independently confirm the pi-anisotropy barrier.

full rationale

The paper contains a genuinely new physical idea: asymmetric pi-d hybridization at the Co/C60 interface creates a spin-dependent electric dipole that adds a spin-dependent electrostatic term to the surface anisotropy, and the symmetry difference between HP and HH adsorption configurations naturally explains the one-shot loss of pinning. Much of the evidence is non-circular: the DFT adsorption geometry and 0.25 eV rotation barrier are first-principles results; the C70 control, the solvent/UV removal control, and the Ta seed-layer thickness window are external falsification tests; and the absence of a unidirectional anisotropy in the FORC/transport data is an independent experimental observation. The circularity is partial and localized. First, the micromagnetic simulation sets the interface anisotropy K to match the measured coercivity and then presents the match as a replication of the experiment; this is a fitted input, not a prediction. Second, the 10.8 meV 'observed' surface exchange energy density is a JA-model fit parameter that is checked against a 10-100 meV barrier range derived from an unknown Aij and cobalt-ferrite example values, so the agreement is not a Co/C60-specific first-principles confirmation. These two steps inflate the apparent support for the model, but they do not by themselves make the central mechanism definitionally equivalent to the data; the model has independent content. Hence a score of 6 rather than 0-2 or 8-10.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central model relies primarily on an unknown magneto-electric coupling constant, DFT-computed adsorption geometries and barriers, and micromagnetic parameters fitted to the measured coercivity. The experimental controls provide independent grounding for a molecule-specific interface effect, but the quantitative pi-anisotropy mechanism itself is not self-contained.

free parameters (3)
  • Aij (magneto-electric coupling strength) = Not measured; cobalt-ferrite example value used
    Eq. (5) requires Aij, but the paper states it is unknown for Co/C60 and uses a value from cobalt-ferrite to estimate the 10 to 100 meV barrier.
  • Micromagnetic interface anisotropy K = 27 MJ/m^3 for first sweep; 1 MJ/m^3 for second sweep
    The Methods state that values were chosen to match the simulated coercivity to the experimental data, so the loop reproduction is fitted.
  • Jiles-Atherton pinning parameters = Tc high ~739 K, Tc low ~351 K, k(0) values not stated
    The coercivity-temperature data are fit to the Jiles-Atherton model in two regions to extract the 10.8 meV surface exchange energy and identify the rotational transition, so these are fitted constants, not independent predictions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Spin-dependent polarization formula (Eq. 5) is valid at metal-molecule interfaces with a scalar magneto-electric coupling Aij.
    The formula is taken from bulk magnetoelectric literature (ref 22); the paper does not derive it for Co/C60 and notes Aij is unknown.
  • domain assumption DFT (PAW/VASP) correctly describes C60 adsorption geometry and rotation barriers on Co(111).
    The HP ground state and the 0.25 eV and 40 meV barriers are simulation outputs; no experimental measurement verifies the molecular orientation or rotation in the bilayer.
  • domain assumption The rotational freezing of C60 at about 90 K in bulk fullerene films applies to C60 molecules at the Co interface.
    Section III links the coercivity transition to bulk C60 rotational dynamics, but strong interface bonding could shift the freezing temperature.
  • domain assumption Interfacial charge transfer and pi-d hybrid interface states exist at Co/C60 as described in prior work.
    The mechanism assumes spin-polarized charge transfer and pi-d hybridization from the cited literature rather than re-deriving them.
  • ad hoc to paper The loop asymmetry is a superposition of high- and low-coercivity loops rather than conventional exchange bias.
    This is the paper's own alternative model, supported by FORC and AMR, but it is not independently established by a direct probe of the proposed molecular rotation.
invented entities (1)
  • pi-anisotropy (spin-dependent electric dipole surface anisotropy)
    purpose: Explains enhanced coercivity, one-shot training-like behavior, and lack of unidirectional anisotropy in Co/C60 bilayers.
    The model's magnitude depends on an unmeasured coupling Aij and an inferred C60 rotation; the paper offers qualitative falsifiable predictions but no direct test outside these measurements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A nano-carbon route to rare earth free permanent magnetism." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CFG6BR4A

@misc{pith2026190802544,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A nano-carbon route to rare earth free permanent magnetism},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CFG6BR4A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02544}
}
read the original abstract

High coercivity magnets are an important resource for renewable energy, electric vehicles and memory technologies. Most hard magnetic materials incorporate rare-earths such as neodymium and samarium, but the concerns about the environmental impact and supply stability of these materials is prompting research into alternatives. Here, we present a hybrid bilayer of cobalt and the nano-carbon molecule C60 which exhibits significantly enhanced coercivity with minimal reduction in magnetisation. We demonstrate how this anisotropy enhancing effect cannot be described by existing models of molecule-metal magnetic interfaces. We outline a new form of magnetic anisotropy, arising from asymmetric magneto-electric coupling in the metal-molecule interface. Because this phenomenon arises from pi-d hybrid orbitals, we propose calling this effect pi-anisotropy. While the critical temperature of this effect is currently limited by the rotational degree of freedom of the chosen molecule, C60, we describe how surface functionalisation would allow for the design of room-temperature, carbon based hard magnetic films.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02544 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. a. MH and JH curves for two indentical, 3nm films of Co recorded in a SQUID-VSM after [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. a. Hysteron density plots for the first and second demagnetisation of a Co- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. a. Representations of the Co/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. a. [Top], hysteresis loops obtained from the first and second sweeps after cooling a Co/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cespedes , author M

    author author O. Cespedes , author M. S. \ Ferreira , author M. K. \ S Sanvito , \ and\ author J. M. D. \ Coey ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Physics Condensed Matter \ volume 16 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Sanvito ,\ @noop journal journal Nature Physics \ volume 6 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    author author S. Sanvito ,\ @noop journal journal Nature Physics \ volume 6 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Moorsom , author M

    author author T. Moorsom , author M. Wheeler , author T. M. \ Khan , author F. A. \ Ma'Mari , author C. Kinane , author S. Langridge , author d Ciudad , author A. Bedoya-Pinto , author L. Hueso , author G. Teobaldi , author V. K. \ Lazarov , author D. Gilks , author G. Burnell , author B. J. \ Hickey , \ and\ author O. Cespedes ,\ @noop journal journal Ph...

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Bairagi , author A

    author author K. Bairagi , author A. Bellec , author V. Repain , author C. Chacon , author Y. Girard , author Y. Garreau , author J. Lagoute , author S. Rousset , author P. Brietwieser , author Y.-C. \ Hu , author Y. C. \ Chao , author W. W. \ Pai , author A. Smogunov , \ and\ author C. Barreteau ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 1...

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    author author F. A. \ Ma'Mari , author T. Moorsom , author G. Teobaldi , author W. Deacon , author T. Prokscha , author H. Luetkens , author S. Lee , author G. E. \ Sterbinsky , author D. A. \ Arena , author D. A. \ MacLaren , author M. Flokstra , author M. Ali , author M. C. \ Wheeler , author G. Burnell , author B. J. \ Hickey , \ and\ author O. Cespede...

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Al Ma'Mari , author M

    author author F. Al Ma'Mari , author M. Rogers , author S. Alghamdi , author T. Moorsom , author S. Lee , author T. Prokscha , author H. Luetkens , author M. Valvidares , author G. Teobaldi , author M. Flokstra , author R. Stewart , author P. Gargiani , author M. Ali , author G. Burnell , author B. J. \ Hickey , \ and\ author O. Cespedes ,\ 10.1073/pnas.1...

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1620216114

  7. [7]

    Martín-Olivera , author D

    author author L. Martín-Olivera , author D. G. \ Shchukin , \ and\ author G. Teobaldi ,\ 10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b08476 journal journal The Journal of Physical Chemistry C \ volume 121 ,\ pages 23777 ( year 2017 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b08476 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b08476 NoStop

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b08476 2017

  8. [8]

    Lu , author M

    author author X. Lu , author M. Grobis , author K. H. \ Khoo , author S. G. \ Louie , \ and\ author M. F. \ Crommie ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.70.115418 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 70 ,\ pages 115418 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.70.115418 2004

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    author author J. D. \ Sau , author J. B. \ Neaton , author H. J. \ Choi , author S. G. \ Louie , \ and\ author M. L. \ Cohen ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.026804 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 101 ,\ pages 026804 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    doi

  2. [10]

    Barraud , author P

    author author C. Barraud , author P. Seneor , author R. Mattana , author S. Fusil , author K. Bouzehouane , author C. Deranlot , author P. Graziosi , author L. Hueso , author I. Bergenti , author V. dediu , author F. Petroff , \ and\ author A. Fert ,\ @noop journal journal Nat...

    2010

  3. [11]

    author author K. V. \ Raman , author A. M. \ Kamerbeek , author A. Mukherjee , author N. Atodiresei , author T. K. \ Sen , author P. Lazić , author V. Caciuc , author R. Michel , author D. Stalke , author S. K. \ Mandal , author S. Blügel , author M. Münzenberg , \ and\ author...

    2013

  4. [12]

    Djeghloul , author M

    author author F. Djeghloul , author M. Gruber , author E. Urbain , author D. Xenioti , author L. Joly , author S. Boukari , author J. Arabski , author H. Bulou , author F. Scheurer , author F. Bertran , author P. Le Fèvre , author A. Taleb-Ibrahimi , author W. Wulfhekel , auth...

    doi

  5. [13]

    Raghunathan , author Y

    author author A. Raghunathan , author Y. Melikhov , author J. E. \ Snyder , \ and\ author D. C. \ Jiles ,\ 10.1109/TMAG.2009.2022744 journal journal IEEE Transactions on Magnetics \ volume 45 ,\ pages 3954 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

  6. [14]

    author author W. H. \ Meiklejohn \ and\ author C. P. \ Bean ,\ 10.1103/PhysRev.105.904 journal journal Phys. Rev. \ volume 105 ,\ pages 904 ( year 1957 ) NoStop

    1957 doi

  7. [15]

    Ali , author C

    author author M. Ali , author C. H. \ Marrows , \ and\ author B. J. \ Hickey ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.67.172405 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 67 ,\ pages 172405 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

    Binek ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review B \ volume 70 ,\ pages 014421 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    author author C. Binek ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review B \ volume 70 ,\ pages 014421 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004

  9. [17]

    author author J. E. \ Davies , author O. Hellwig , author E. E. \ Fullerton , author J. S. \ Jiang , author S. D. \ Bader , author G. T. \ Zimanyi , \ and\ author K. Liu ,\ @noop journal journal Applied Physics Letter \ volume 86 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005

  10. [18]

    author author W. I. F. \ David , author R. M. \ Ibberson , author T. J. S. \ Dennis , author J. P. \ Hare , \ and\ author K. Prassides ,\ 10.1209/0295-5075/18/8/012 journal journal Europhysics Letters ( EPL ) \ volume 18 ,\ pages 735 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

    doi

  11. [19]

    Brems , author K

    author author S. Brems , author K. Temst , \ and\ author C. Van Haesendonck ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.067201 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 99 ,\ pages 067201 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    Li , author C

    author author D. Li , author C. Barreteau , author S. L. \ Kawahara , author J. Lagoute , author C. Chacon , \ and\ author Y. Gi ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review B \ volume 93 ,\ pages 085425 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  13. [21]

    Murakawa , author Y

    author author H. Murakawa , author Y. Onose , author S. Miyahara , author N. Furukawa , \ and\ author Y. Tokura ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.137202 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 105 ,\ pages 137202 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

    author author J. S. \ Lim , author D. Saldana-Greco , \ and\ author A. M. \ Rappe ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.97.045115 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 97 ,\ pages 045115 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Etier , author C

    author author M. Etier , author C. Schmitz-Antoniak , author S. Salamon , author H. Trivedi , author Y. Gao , author A. Nazrabi , author J. Landers , author D. Gautam , author M. Winterer , author D. Schmitz , author H. Wende , author V. V. \ Shvartsman , \ and\ author D. C. \...

    2015

  16. [24]

    \ Chu , author C.-H

    author author Y.-H. \ Chu , author C.-H. \ Hsu , author C.-I. \ Lu , author H.-H. \ Yang , author T.-H. \ yang , author C.-H. \ Luo , author K.-J. \ Yang , author S.-H. \ Hsu , author G. Hoffmann , author C.-C. \ Kaun , \ and\ author M.-T. \ Lin ,\ @noop journal journal ACS Na...

    2015

  17. [25]

    Szunyogh , author B

    author author L. Szunyogh , author B. Lazarovits , author L. Udvardi , author J. Jackson , \ and\ author U. Nowak ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.79.020403 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 79 ,\ pages 020403 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    Gruber , author F

    author author M. Gruber , author F. Ibrahim , author S. Boukari , author H. Isshiki , author L. Joly , author M. Peter , author M. Studniarek , author V. da Costa , author H. Jabbar , author V. Davesne , author U. Halisdemir , author J. Chen , author J. Arabski , author E. Ote...

    2015

  19. [27]

    Pike \ and\ author A

    author author C. Pike \ and\ author A. Fernandez ,\ 10.1063/1.370177 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 85 ,\ pages 6668 ( year 1999 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://doi.org/10.1063/1.370177 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.370177 NoStop

    1999 doi

  20. [28]

    Tatara \ and\ author H

    author author G. Tatara \ and\ author H. Fukuyama ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 78 ,\ pages 19 ( year 1997 ) NoStop

    1997

  21. [29]

    Jo , author J

    author author J. Jo , author J. Byun , author I. Oh , author J. Park , author M.-J. \ Jin , author B.-C. \ Min , author J. Lee , \ and\ author J.-W. \ Yoo ,\ 10.1021/acsnano.8b08689 journal journal ACS Nano \ volume 13 ,\ pages 894 ( year 2019 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https:/...

    doi

  22. [30]

    \ Bisotti , author M

    author author M.-A. \ Bisotti , author M. Beg , author W. Wang , author M. Albert , author D. Chernyshenko , author D. Cortés-Ortuño , author R. A. \ Pepper , author M. Vousden , author R. Carey , author H. Fuchs , author A. Johansen , author G. Balaban , author L. Breth , aut...

    doi

  23. [31]

    Kresse \ and\ author J

    author author G. Kresse \ and\ author J. Furthmuller ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 54 ,\ pages 11169 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.