Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Resonance Raman Scattering and Anomalous Anti-Stokes Phenomena in CrSBr

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CrSBr, an air-stable magnetic van der Waals semiconductor, exhibits stimulated Raman scattering with a gain near $10^8$ cm/GW, roughly four orders of magnitude above conventional three-dimensional Raman media, and an unusually strong…

desk verdict Solid Raman study of CrSBr with new resonance and anti-Stokes data, but the SRS gain claim is under-supported and should not be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01794 v2 pith:MESCASFW submitted 2025-02-03 cond-mat.mes-hall

Satyam Sahu , Charlotte Berrezueta-Palacios , Sabrina Juergensen , Kseniia Mosina , Zdeněk Sofer , Matěj Velický , Patryk Kusch , Otakar Frank This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall PACS 78.30.-j78.55.-m
keywords CrSBrresonanceRamanspectroscopyanti-StokesstimulatedscatteringgainvanderWaalsmagnetindirecttransitionphotoluminescence
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

CrSBr, an air-stable magnetic van der Waals semiconductor, is shown here to combine several unusual optical behaviors in one crystal. Using absorption, photoluminescence, and excitation-energy-dependent Raman spectroscopy, the authors locate direct optical transitions near 1.85 eV and 2.26 eV, while the 1.72 eV photoluminescence peak is assigned to an indirect transition. They report anti-Stokes-to-Stokes Raman intensity ratios up to 0.8 at room temperature, far larger than typical values in graphene or MoS$_2$. The central claim is the first observation of stimulated Raman scattering in CrSBr, with a Raman gain of about $10^8$ cm/GW, roughly four orders of magnitude higher than previously studied three-dimensional systems, which would make the material a promising low-power Raman amplifier or laser medium.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the set of three out-of-plane Raman-active modes A1g (113.6 cm$^{-1}$), A2g (244.1 cm$^{-1}$), and A3g (342.6 cm$^{-1}$), plus two frequency-domain handles on them. First, resonant Raman excitation profiles are fit with a two-resonance scattering cross-section (incoming and outgoing resonances) to locate direct transitions, which is how the 1.72 eV emission is shown to lack a corresponding direct resonance. Second, the anti-Stokes-to-Stokes intensity ratio is used as a phonon-population probe, and the power-law exponent $n$ in $I \propto P^n$ is used to discriminate spontaneous ($n \approx 1$) from stimulated ($n > 1$) Raman scattering; the stimulated gain is then extracted from $I \propto \exp(g L I_{\mathrm{in}})$. The A2g mode alone shows SRS, and only for a-axis polarization, which the paper ties to the orientation of Raman tensor elements and the quasi-1D electronic confinement of CrSBr.

What would settle it

Measure the A2g Stokes intensity versus pump fluence with a known spot size and with different flake thicknesses, and check whether the superlinear onset at 300 $\mu$W remains a sharp threshold and whether the extracted gain keeps its value; any competing nonlinearity would fail one of these tests, and a non-SRS origin would be confirmed if the anti-Stokes rise disappears under off-resonant excitation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the core discovery is that a 55 nm-thick suspended flake of CrSBr, excited at 1.96 eV with polarization along the a-axis, crosses from spontaneous to stimulated Raman scattering in the A2g mode near 244 cm$^{-1}$ when the laser power exceeds about 300 $\mu$W: the Stokes and anti-Stokes intensities switch from a linear power law ($n=0.93$–$0.98$) to superlinear growth ($n=1.69$ and $1.80$), with no hysteresis on power cycling. Fitting the intensity with $I \propto \exp(g L I_{\mathrm{in}})$ and taking the interaction length $L = 1 \mu$m gives a gain $g \approx 10^8$ cm/GW, which the paper compares favorably to silicon nanowires, quantum-cascade Raman lasers, and bulk silicon. The same study also interprets the photoluminescence at 1.72 eV as an indirect transition, supported by resonant Raman profiles that show resonances near 2.0 and 2.2 eV but none near 1.7 eV, and it documents an unusually large anti-Stokes-to-Stokes ratio up to 0.8 that grows with power and depends on crystal orientation. The authors attribute these effects to CrSBr's quasi-1D electronic structure and strong electron-phonon coupling.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on treating the superlinear power dependence ($n = 1.69$ and $1.80$ above 300 $\mu$W) as a unique signature of stimulated Raman scattering and on assuming an interaction length $L = 1 \mu$m for a 55 nm-thick flake; if another nonlinearity produces the superlinear growth, the extracted gain is overestimated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported gain holds, CrSBr flakes could amplify Raman signals at pump intensities several orders of magnitude below bulk silicon Raman lasers, with thresholds near 30 kW/cm$^2$.
  • The 1.72 eV photoluminescence should be removed from lists of direct band-edge excitonic emission in CrSBr and treated as an indirect, phonon-assisted transition, which shifts how the 1.31 eV direct exciton and the 0.4 eV valence-band splitting are interpreted.
  • Because SRS appears only for a-axis polarization while the b-axis shows Fano asymmetry, the same crystal could act as an all-optical switch or orientational sensor that amplifies or interferes depending on laser polarization.
  • The anti-Stokes-to-Stokes ratio up to 0.8 makes CrSBr a sensitive phonon thermometer in power-dependent measurements and a benchmark for resonance-enhanced anti-Stokes models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: Because CrSBr orders antiferromagnetically at low temperature, a natural extension is to measure the SRS gain across the magnetic transition; if magneto-excitons mediate the electron-phonon coupling, the gain and threshold should shift with magnetic order, which the paper does not test.
  • Inference: The extracted gain scales inversely with the assumed interaction length and launch spot area, so independent calibration of the beam waist and collection volume would confirm whether the headline $10^8$ cm/GW is the right magnitude.
  • Inference: A time-resolved or spectrally resolved pump-probe experiment would cleanly separate stimulated Raman scattering from competing nonlinearities such as two-photon absorption or hot-phonon populations that could also produce superlinear intensity growth.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the optical properties of exfoliated CrSBr flakes, combining absorption, photoluminescence, resonance Raman scattering (RRS), and power-dependent Raman measurements. The authors report three main results: (1) the 1.72 eV PL emission is assigned to an indirect transition, supported by the absence of a corresponding absorption feature and by RRS resonance profiles that show resonances near 2.0 and 2.2 eV; (2) anomalously high anti-Stokes-to-Stokes Raman intensity ratios (up to 0.8) that vary with laser power and polarization, attributed to resonance and exciton–phonon coupling effects; and (3) the first observation of stimulated Raman scattering (SRS) in CrSBr, with a claimed Raman gain of ~1e8 cm/GW, derived from a superlinear power dependence of the A2g mode intensity above 300 uW and an exponential fit using an interaction length L = 1 um. The raw data appear plausible, but the SRS identification and the absolute gain value rest on assumptions that are not fully justified in the manuscript.

Significance. If the SRS claim is correct, CrSBr would be an exceptionally strong Raman gain medium, potentially enabling low-threshold Raman lasers and other nonlinear photonic devices in a air-stable van der Waals magnet. The RRS excitation profiles and the anti-Stokes-to-Stokes ratio measurements are valuable experimental contributions that connect the optical absorption and emission properties of CrSBr to specific phonon modes and electronic resonances. The paper also provides a falsifiable assignment of the 1.72 eV emission as indirect, consistent with recent literature. The data are deposited in a public repository, which is commendable. However, the headline SRS claim is not yet supported by the evidence presented: the superlinear power dependence is not a unique SRS signature, and the absolute gain is not uniquely determined without a measured spot area and a justified interaction length.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.4, Fig. 4] The identification of stimulated Raman scattering rests solely on the power-law exponents n = 1.69 +/- 0.03 (Stokes) and n = 1.80 +/- 0.04 (anti-Stokes) above 300 uW, with n near 1 below. A superlinear exponent is not a unique SRS signature: if the Raman cross-section is enhanced by the photoexcited carrier/exciton density N(P), which scales linearly with P in CrSBr given its strong exciton-phonon coupling (emphasized in Sec. 3.3 and refs. 31,49), the intensity would scale as I ~ P*N(P) ~ P^2, matching the observed exponents without any coherent amplification. The standard discriminating checks for SRS—dependence of the threshold on focal-spot size, Stokes/anti-Stokes linewidth narrowing, or direct seed amplification—are not reported. The claim of 'first observation of SRS in CrSBr' in the abstract and Sec. 3.4 therefore needs additional experimental support or should be substantially qualified.
  2. [Sec. 3.4, Fig. 4b] The absolute Raman gain g ~ 1e8 cm/GW is obtained from an exponential fit using L = 1 um as the interaction length and I_in = P/spot area, but the laser spot area is never reported and L is not justified for a 55-nm-thick flake in backscattering geometry. In the absence of a waveguide or cavity effect (which is only speculatively mentioned), the effective interaction length cannot exceed the flake thickness of ~55 nm. The exponential fit constrains only the product g*L/A, so the quoted gain value depends on two unverified parameters and cannot be compared directly with bulk or nanowire values. The authors should either measure the spot area and use a physically justified interaction length, or remove the absolute gain claim and restrict the discussion to the observed power-law exponent.
  3. [Sec. 3.4, Fig. 4a and ESI Fig. S4] The threshold at 300 uW is defined post hoc as the power above which the power-law exponent changes. The plotted data in Fig. 4a appear to show a gradual change in slope rather than a sharp kink, so the evidence for a distinct SRS threshold is weak. The absence of hysteresis on decreasing power rules out irreversible laser damage but does not distinguish coherent SRS from a reversible, incoherent carrier-density enhancement of the Raman cross-section, which would also show no hysteresis under these conditions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 3.4] The term 'Raman gain' is used in a definitive way; given the assumptions in its extraction, it would be more accurate to call it an 'estimated' or 'apparent' gain.
  2. [Sec. 3.4] The laser spot area used to compute the power density I_in should be reported; without it, the value of I_in is ill-defined and the exponential fit in Fig. 4b is not reproducible.
  3. [Sec. 3.4] The comparisons with Si nanowires, quantum cascade lasers, and bulk Raman lasers assume a consistent definition of interaction length across different geometries; these comparisons should be re-evaluated once L and the spot area are properly quantified or removed.
  4. [Sec. 3.3] The statement that the polarization dependence of the anti-Stokes-to-Stokes ratio arises from 'different resonance conditions for the individual modes' is only qualitative; a more quantitative comparison with the resonance enhancement factors of Fig. 2 would strengthen this interpretation.
  5. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) is presented without derivation or citation; please cite a standard reference (e.g., Yu and Cardona, Ref. 38) for the RRS cross-section expression and state explicitly that M1 = M2 is an assumption used for the fit.
  6. [Title and throughout] The word 'anomalous' in the title is somewhat overstated because the observed anti-Stokes-to-Stokes ratios are attributed to resonance and coupling effects; consider replacing it with 'enhanced' or 'strong'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline Raman gain is a fit parameter honestly labeled as such, and the central observations are directly measured.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is mostly measurement-plus-interpretation rather than prediction. The resonance energies are extracted by fitting the RRS profiles with eqn (1); this is a fit, but the paper checks it against the independently measured absorption spectrum (peaks at 1.85 and 2.26 eV versus fitted 2.0/2.2 eV resonances), so the resonance assignment has external support. The anti-Stokes-to-Stokes ratio is a directly measured quantity and is not derived from any fitted parameter. The SRS identification rests on the fitted superlinear exponent n ≈ 1.69/1.80 above 300 μW, and the reported gain g ≈ 1 × 10^8 cm/GW is then obtained by fitting the same intensity-versus-power data to I ∝ exp(g·L·I_in) with an assumed L = 1 μm and an unreported laser spot area. That makes the absolute gain model-dependent and underdetermined, but the paper does not rename the fitted g as an independent prediction; it explicitly says 'we determined the SRS gain ... from the fits.' The inference 'n > 1 implies SRS' is a literature-based criterion (ref. 50) and is weak evidence, but that is a correctness/evidential concern, not a formal circularity. Self-citations (refs 18, 25, 28, 34) are used for sample preparation, mode assignment, and known properties; none is load-bearing for the central claim, and none imports a uniqueness theorem. Therefore no step reduces to its inputs by construction, and the circularity score is low.

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

The paper's new quantitative claims rest on standard resonance-Raman theory, an assumed power-law criterion for SRS, and an assumed interaction length. The resonance energies and linewidths are fitted to the authors' own data, and the Raman gain is a fit parameter rather than an independently predicted constant. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • A1g resonance parameters (ER1, ER2, gamma/2) = ER1 = 1.99/1.96 eV, ER2 = 2.20/2.20 eV, gamma/2 = 0.13/0.12 eV
    Fitted to RRS profiles with Eq. 1 (Table 1) and used to identify direct transitions near 2.0 and 2.2 eV.
  • A2g resonance parameters (ER1, ER2, gamma/2) = ER1 = 1.98/1.92 eV, ER2 = 2.15/2.14 eV, gamma/2 = 0.10/0.10 eV
    Fitted to RRS profiles with Eq. 1 (Table 1); the anti-Stokes resonance is lower than the Stokes resonance.
  • A3g resonance parameters (ER1, ER2, gamma/2) = ER1 = 2.04/1.94 eV, ER2 = 2.23/2.19 eV, gamma/2 = 0.10/0.10 eV
    Fitted to RRS profiles with Eq. 1 (Table 1), supporting the 2.0 and 2.2 eV direct transitions.
  • SRS power-law exponents (Stokes, anti-Stokes) = n = 1.69 +/- 0.03 and 1.80 +/- 0.04
    Fitted slopes in the log-log intensity vs. power plot above 300 uW (Fig. 4a); used as the main evidence for SRS.
  • Raman gain g = about 1e8 cm/GW
    Obtained from an exponential fit to the intensity vs. input intensity data (Fig. 4b), using the same data as the SRS claim.
  • Interaction length L = 1 um (assumed)
    Used in the gain calculation but not measured; the flake is 55 nm thick, so the choice of L directly affects the reported gain.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Resonance Raman cross-section with incoming and outgoing resonances (Eq. 1) with M1 = M2.
    Used in Sec. 3.2 to fit RRS profiles and extract resonance energies; assumes equal matrix elements and Lorentzian broadening.
  • domain assumption Power law I proportional to P^n distinguishes spontaneous (n = 1) from stimulated (n > 1) Raman scattering.
    Sec. 3.4 uses the fitted exponent to claim SRS; this is a standard but not sufficient criterion.
  • domain assumption Exponential gain law I proportional to exp(g L Iin) for the SRS intensity.
    Sec. 3.4 uses this law to compute g; L is set to 1 um without direct measurement.
  • domain assumption Phonon mode assignment (A1g, A2g, A3g) and crystal-axis identification from prior literature.
    Sec. 3.1 relies on refs 28 and 34 for mode symmetries and axis orientation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resonance Raman Scattering and Anomalous Anti-Stokes Phenomena in CrSBr." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MESCASFW

@misc{pith2026250201794,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resonance Raman Scattering and Anomalous Anti-Stokes Phenomena in CrSBr},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MESCASFW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01794}
}
abstract

CrSBr, a van der Waals material, stands out as an air-stable magnetic semiconductor with appealing intrinsic properties such as crystalline anisotropy, quasi-1D electronic characteristics, layer-dependent antiferromagnetism, and non-linear optical effects. In this study, we investigate the differences between the absorption and emission spectra, focusing on the origin of the emission peak near 1.7 eV observed in the photoluminescence spectrum of CrSBr. Our findings are corroborated by excitation-dependent Raman experiments. Additionally, we explore the anti-Stokes Raman spectra and observe an anomalously high anti-Stokes to Stokes intensity ratio of up to 0.8, which varies significantly with excitation laser power and crystallographic orientation relative to the polarization of the scattered light. This ratio is notably higher than that observed in graphene ($\approx$ 0.1) and MoS$_2$ ($\approx$ 0.4), highlighting the unique vibrational and electronic interactions in CrSBr. Lastly, we examine stimulated Raman scattering and calculate the Raman gain in CrSBr, which attains a value of 1 $\times$ 10$^{8}$ cm/GW, nearly four orders of magnitude higher than that of previously studied three-dimensional systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1 S. Chen, C. Huang, H. Sun, J. Ding, P. Jena and E. Kan, J. Phys. Chem. C , 2019, 123, 17987– 17993. 2 C. Gong, L. Li, Z. Li, H. Ji, A. Stern, Y. Xia, T. Cao, W. Bao, C. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Q. Qiu, R. Cava, S. G. Louie, J. Xia and X. Zhang, Nature, 2017, 546, 265–

    work page 2019

  2. [22]

    Sullivan, A

    35 S. Sullivan, A. Vallabhaneni, I. Kholmanov, X. Ruan, J. Murthy and L. Shi, Nano Lett., 2017, 17, 2049–

    work page 2017

  3. [39]

    This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence

    Downloaded on 5/15/2025 12:45:09 PM. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence. View Article Online

    work page 2025

  4. [56]

    Troccoli, A

    54 M. Troccoli, A. Belyanin, F. Capasso, E. Cubukcu, D. L. Sivco and A. Y. Cho, Nature, 2005, 433, 845–

    work page 2005

  5. [62]

    13 C. Ye, C. Wang, Q. Wu, S. Liu, J. Zhou, G. Wang, A. Soll, Z. Sofer, M. Yue, X. Liu, M. Tian, Q. Xiong, W. Ji and X. R. Wang, ACS Nano, 2022, 16, 11876 – 11883. 14 K. Torres, A. Kuc, L. Maschio, T. Pham, K. Reidy, L. Dekanovsky, Z. Sofer, F. M. Ross and J. Klein, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2023, 33, 2211366. 15 N. P. Wilson, K. Lee, J. Cenker, K. Xie, A. H. Di...

    work page 2022

  6. [116]

    Sistani, M

    57 M. Sistani, M. G. Bartmann, N. A. Güsken, R. F. Oulton, H. Keshmiri, M. A. Luong, E. Robin, M. I. den Hertog and A. Lugstein, J. Phys. Chem. C , 2020, 124, 13872– 13877. 58 A. Flusberg and R. Holmes, Phys. Rev. Lett. , 1987, 58,

    work page 2020

  7. [136]

    23 C. Wang, X. Zhou, L. Zhou, N.-H. Tong, Z.-Y. Lu and W. Ji, Sci. Bull., 2019, 64, 293–

    work page 2019

  8. [269]

    Žutić, J

    3I . Žutić, J. Fabian and S. D. Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. , 2004, 76,

    work page 2004

Show all 39 references
  1. [270]

    9 K. Wang, J. Alzate and P. K. Amiri, J. Phys. D:Appl. Phys. , 2013, 46, 074003. 10 X. Wang, Y. Sun and K. Liu, 2D Mater., 2019, 6, 042001. 11 D. Shcherbakov, P. Stepanov, D. Weber, Y. Wang, J. Hu, Y. Zhu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Z. Mao, W. Windl, J. Goldberger, M. Bockrath...

    2013

  2. [300]

    24 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 Lett., 2021, 21, 3511–

    2021

  3. [323]

    4 D. R. Klein, D. MacNeill, J. L. Lado, D. Soriano, E. Navarro- Moratalla, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Manni, P. Canfield, J. Fernández-Rossier and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Science, 2018, 360, 1218–

    2018

  4. [728]

    Peng, Europhys

    56 F. Peng, Europhys. Lett., 2005, 73,

    2005

  5. [848]

    55 H. Rong, R. Jones, A. Liu, O. Cohen, D. Hak, A. Fang and M. Paniccia, Nature, 2005, 433, 725–

    2005

  6. [920]

    7 H. H. Kim, B. Yang, T. Patel, F. Sfigakis, C. Li, S. Tian, H. Lei and A. W. Tsen, Nano Lett., 2018, 18, 4885–

    2018

  7. [1043]

    29 S. A. López-Paz, Z. Guguchia, V. Y. Pomjakushin, C. Witteveen, A. Cervellino, H. Luetkens, N. Casati, A. F. Morpurgo and F. O. von Rohr, Nat. Commun. , 2022, 13,

    2022

  8. [1209]

    53 H. M. Pask, Prog. Quantum Electron., 2003, 27,3 –

    2003

  9. [1218]

    6 T. Song, M. W.-Y. Tu, C. Carnahan, X. Cai, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. A. McGuire, D. H. Cobden, D. Xiao, W. Yao and X. Xu, Nano Lett., 2019, 19, 915–

    2019

  10. [1222]

    5 T. Song, X. Cai, M. W.-Y. Tu, X. Zhang, B. Huang, N. P. Wilson, K. L. Seyler, L. Zhu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. A. McGuire, D. H. Cobden, D. Xiao, W. Yao and X. Xu, Science, 2018, 360, 1214–

    2018

  11. [1662]

    16 F. Moro, S. Ke, A. G. del Águila, A. Söll, Z. Sofer, Q. Wu, M. Yue, L. Li, X. Liu and M. Fanciulli, Adv. Funct. Mater. , 2022, 32, 2207044. 17 E. J. Telford, A. H. Dismukes, K. Lee, M. Cheng, A. Wieteska, A. K. Bartholomew, Y.-S. Chen, X. Xu, A. N. Pasupathy, X. Zhu, C. R. ...

    2022

  12. [1996]

    Kusch, S

    39 P. Kusch, S. Breuer, M. Ramsteiner, L. Geelhaar, H. Riechert and S. Reich, Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys., 2012, 86, 075317. 40 P. Kusch, E. Grelich, C. Somaschini, E. Luna, M. Ramsteiner, L. Geelhaar, H. Riechert and S. Reich, Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mate...

    2012

  13. [2011]

    Jiang, Y

    49 P. Jiang, Y. Li, X. Lyu, J. Xiao, X. Li, T. Wang, J. Tang, Y. Wang, L. Zhang, Y. Liu, H. Yang, X. Hu, Y. Ye, Z. Chen, Y. Gao, C. Wu and Q. Gong, J. Phys. Chem. C , 2024, 128, 21855– 21860. 50 J. Wu, A. K. Gupta, H. R. Gutierrez and P. C. Eklund, Nano Lett., 2009, 9, 3252–

    2024

  14. [2025]

    This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence

    Downloaded on 5/15/2025 12:45:09 PM. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence. View Article Online 21 C. Hu, H. Cheng, J. Zhou, K. Zhang, X. Liu and Y. Jiang, Materials, 2024, 17,

    2025

  15. [2039]

    Zhang, T

    59 Y. Zhang, T. Li, S. Wang, Z. Wang and S. Zhu, Adv. Phys. Res., 2023, 2, 2200048. Paper Nanoscale 11546 | Nanoscale,2 0 2 5 ,17, 11539–11546 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2025 Open Access Article. Published on 09 April

    2023

  16. [2056]

    Sokalski, Z

    36 P. Sokalski, Z. Han, G. C. Fleming, B. Smith, S. E. Sullivan, R. Huang, X. Ruan and L. Shi, Appl. Phys. Lett. , 2022, 121, 182202. 37 A. Rodriguez, A. Krayev, M. Velický, O. Frank and P. Z. El- Khoury, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. , 2022, 13, 5854–

    2022

  17. [2649]

    Sahoo, A

    46 S. Sahoo, A. P. Gaur, M. Ahmadi, M. J.-F. Guinel and R. S. Katiyar, J. Phys. Chem. C , 2013, 117, 9042–

    2013

  18. [2905]

    32 K. Lin, Y. Li, M. Ghorbani-Asl, Z. Sofer, S. Winnerl, A. Erbe, A. V. Krasheninnikov, M. Helm, S. Zhou, Y. Dan and S. Prucnal, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. , 2024, 15, 6010 –

    2024

  19. [3257]

    Zhang, K

    51 B. Zhang, K. Shimazaki, T. Shiokawa, M. Suzuki, K. Ishibashi and R. Saito, Appl. Phys. Lett., 2006, 88, 241101. 52 D. Agarwal, M.-L. Ren, J. S. Berger, J. Yoo, A. Pan and R. Agarwal, Nano Lett., 2019, 19, 1204–

    2006

  20. [3430]

    Göser, W

    22 O. Göser, W. Paul and H. Kahle, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. , 1990, 92, 129–

    1990

  21. [3493]

    Calizo, A

    45 I. Calizo, A. A. Balandin, W. Bao, F. Miao and C. Lau, Nano Lett., 2007, 7, 2645–

    2007

  22. [3517]

    Klein, T

    25 J. Klein, T. Pham, J. Thomsen, J. Curtis, T. Denneulin, M. Lorke, M. Florian, A. Steinho ff, R. Wiscons, J. Luxa, Z. Sofer, F. Jahnke, P. Narang and F. M. Ross, Nat. Commun., 2022, 13,

    2022

  23. [4107]

    31 K. Lin, X. Sun, F. Dirnberger, Y. Li, J. Qu, P. Wen, Z. Sofer, A. Söll, S. Winnerl, M. Helm, S. Zhou, Y. Dan and S. Prucnal, ACS Nano, 2024, 18, 2898–

    2024

  24. [4219]

    12 Z. Tu, T. Xie, Y. Lee, J. Zhou, A. S. Admasu, Y. Gong, N. Valanoor, J. Cumings, S.-W. Cheong, I. Takeuchi, K. Cho and C. Gong, npj 2D Mater. Appl. , 2021, 5,

    2021

  25. [4745]

    Meineke, J

    30 C. Meineke, J. Schlosser, M. Zizlsperger, M. Liebich, N. Nilforoushan, K. Mosina, S. Terres, A. Chernikov, Z. Sofer, M. A. Huber, M. Florian, M. Kira, F. Dirnberger and R. Huber, Nano Lett., 2024, 24, 4101–

    2024

  26. [4890]

    Behin-Aein, D

    8 B. Behin-Aein, D. Datta, S. Salahuddin and S. Datta, Nat. Nanotechnol., 2010, 5, 266–

    2010

  27. [5328]

    Bianchi, S

    19 M. Bianchi, S. Acharya, F. Dirnberger, J. Klein, D. Pashov, K. Mosina, Z. Sofer, A. N. Rudenko, M. I. Katsnelson, M. Van Schilfgaarde, M. Rösner and P. Hofmann, Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. , 2023, 107, 235107. 20 K. Mosina, B. Wu, N. Antonatos, J. Luxa, V. Ma...

    2023

  28. [5420]

    Pawbake, T

    26 A. Pawbake, T. Pelini, I. Mohelsky, D. Jana, I. Breslavetz, C.-W. Cho, M. Orlita, M. Potemski, M.-A. Measson, N. P. Wilson, K. Mosina, A. Soll, Z. Sofer, B. A. Piot, M. E. Zhitomirsky and C. Faugeras, Nano Lett. , 2023, 23, 9587–

    2023

  29. [6016]

    33 X. Shen, J. Cao, W. Liang, B. Cong, B. Ke, J. Zhao and B. Zou, arXiv, 2024, preprint, arXiv:2411.17466, DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.17466; . 34 P. Mondal, D. I. Markina, L. Hopf, L. Krelle, S. Shradha, J. Klein, M. M. Glazov, I. Gerber, K. Hagmann, R. V. Klitzing, K. Mosina, Z...

    2024 doi arXiv

  30. [9047]

    47 D. J. Late, S. N. Shirodkar, U. V. Waghmare, V. P. Dravid and C. Rao, ChemPhysChem, 2014, 15, 1592–

    2014

  31. [9593]

    Boix-Constant, S

    27 C. Boix-Constant, S. Mañas-Valero, A. M. Ruiz, A. Rybakov, K. A. Konieczny, S. Pillet, J. J. Baldoví and E. Coronado, Adv. Mater., 2022, 34, 2204940. 28 J. Panda, S. Sahu, G. Haider, M. K. Thakur, K. Mosina, M. Velický, J. Vejpravová, Z. Sofer and M. Kalbá č, ACS Appl. Mate...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.