Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 79 references

Anomalous Hall effect in highly c-plane oriented Mn$_{3}$Ge/Si(100) thin films grown by pulsed laser deposition

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Pulsed laser deposition grows single-phase hexagonal Mn3Ge films on silicon with a Berry-curvature anomalous Hall effect.

desk verdict A plausible buffer-free growth route to hexagonal Mn3Ge on Si(100) with AHE, but the single-phase claim needs harder structural evidence before the Berry-curvature story is sold. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00809 v2 pith:OSG56AI5 submitted 2025-02-02 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Indraneel Sinha , Purba Dutta , Nazma Firdosh , Shreyashi Sinha , Nirmal Ganguli , Sujit Manna This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords Mn3GeKagomelatticeAnomalousHalleffectPulsedlaserdepositionAntiferromagneticspintronicsWeylsemimetalThinfilmsBerrycurvature
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 reports that pulsed laser deposition can grow single-phase, c-plane oriented hexagonal Mn3Ge films directly on Si(100) without a buffer layer, and that these 30 nm films show an anomalous Hall resistivity of up to 0.41 \mu\$\Omega$\cdot\text{cm} at 2 K even though their magnetization is nearly zero. The authors argue that this anomalous Hall effect comes from Berry curvature carried by the chiral non-collinear antiferromagnetic Kagome lattice, with a spin Berry phase produced under an out-of-plane magnetic field. If correct, this makes a topological antiferromagnet available on a standard semiconductor platform, which is a step toward antiferromagnetic spintronics that work at room temperature. The paper also uses atomically resolved scanning tunneling microscopy to show a Kagome surface arrangement and tunneling spectra with a dip near the Fermi level, and density functional theory to show that replacing Ge with Mn progressively weakens the topological band crossings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the chiral non-collinear antiferromagnetic Kagome lattice of Mn moments in hexagonal Mn3Ge. In this structure, Mn spins sit on corner-sharing triangles and, through frustration and the Dzyaloshinskii\textendash{}Moriya interaction, form a triangular spin arrangement whose scalar spin chirality $\mathbf{S}_1\cdot(\mathbf{S}_2\times\mathbf{S}_3)$ becomes nonzero under an out-of-plane field. That chirality produces a spin Berry phase and a nonzero integral of Berry curvature, which gives an anomalous Hall signal independent of net magnetization. The growth mechanism of layer-by-layer deposition at high temperature is what preserves the Kagome order in a film on silicon.

What would settle it

Perform a wide-range 2\$\theta$ x-ray diffraction scan, rocking curves, pole figures, or cross-sectional transmission electron microscopy on the same 30 nm films to search for DO22 reflections or Mn-rich precipitates; detecting any such secondary phase would undermine the attribution of the anomalous Hall effect to the hexagonal Kagome lattice. Alternatively, anneal a film to convert it to the tetragonal phase and check whether the anomalous Hall effect disappears with the hexagonal phase.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that buffer-free pulsed laser deposition yields single-phase hexagonal (DO19) Mn3Ge(0001) films on Si(100), with layer-by-layer growth at 550\--650 \,^{\circ}\text{C} and a surface where Mn atoms form a Kagome lattice. Despite a nearly vanishing net magnetization (0.03 \mu_B per Mn at 650 \,^{\circ}\text{C}), the films exhibit an anomalous Hall resistivity \rho^A_{xy} \approx 0.41 \,\mu\$\Omega$\cdot\text{cm} at 2 K and a finite anomalous Hall effect at 300 K, which the authors attribute to the nonzero scalar spin chirality and associated spin Berry curvature of the chiral antiferromagnetic order, not to magnetization. Transport and magnetization data are supported by density functional theory showing Weyl and Dirac crossings near the Fermi level for the lowest-energy magnetic configuration, and by doping calculations in which Mn substitution for Ge opens a gap and removes the topological crossings.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the films are single-phase hexagonal Mn3Ge rests on a narrow x-ray diffraction window that shows only (0002) and (0004) reflections; if a tetragonal DO22 phase or Mn-rich precipitates coexist without showing up in that window, the observed weak ferromagnetism and anomalous Hall effect could come from that secondary phase instead of the chiral Kagome antiferromagnet.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Room-temperature anomalous Hall response in a topological antiferromagnet grown directly on Si(100) could let antiferromagnetic spintronics be integrated with silicon electronics without buffer layers.
  • The layer-by-layer growth mode at 550\textendash{}650 \,^{\circ}\text{C} gives atomically flat terraces with Kagome surface order, making the films suitable for surface-sensitive probes and future devices.
  • The observed \rho^A_{xy} of 0.41 \,\mu\Omega\cdot\text{cm} at 2 K is comparable to sputtered films and close to bulk crystals, so thin-film topological Hall response need not be degraded.
  • Mn substitution for Ge, which happens naturally during growth, suppresses the topological band crossings and can drive the film semiconducting, explaining why stoichiometry control is crucial.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the single-phase claim survives wider structural characterization, the same buffer-free pulsed laser deposition route may extend to other Mn3X Kagome antiferromagnets and to growth on other semiconductor substrates.
  • The dip in the tunneling density of states near the Fermi level, if confirmed by angle-resolved photoemission, would place the Weyl crossings directly in the surface electronic structure rather than only in density functional theory.
  • The Kondo-like upturn observed in the 550 \,^{\circ}\text{C} films suggests that Mn substitutions act as magnetic impurities; tuning that doping could turn the same films into a tunable platform for correlated Weyl physics.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports growth of Mn3Ge thin films on Si(100) by pulsed laser deposition without a buffer layer, claiming single-phase, c-plane oriented hexagonal DO19 films. The authors characterize morphology by AFM and STM, observe a Kagome surface arrangement, measure magnetization and magnetotransport, and report anomalous Hall resistivity up to 0.41 µΩ·cm at 2 K despite a small net magnetization. DFT calculations of Mn3+xGe1-x are used to interpret the doping-dependent suppression of topological features. The central claim is that the observed AHE arises from Berry curvature of the chiral non-collinear Kagome antiferromagnet.

Significance. If substantiated, this is a significant advance: direct integration of crystalline hexagonal Mn3Ge on Si(100) with a room-temperature AHE would remove a major obstacle for antiferromagnetic spintronics. The STM images of the Kagome surface and the DFT doping trend are valuable additions. Strengths include the use of multiple complementary characterization techniques, atomically resolved STM that directly visualizes the Kagome lattice, XRR fitting, and first-principles calculations that are not fitted to the transport data. However, the phase-purity evidence and the AHE extraction currently carry the main burden of the interpretation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1 and Fig. 1(b)–(c)] The claim that the films are 'single phase' DO19 rests on XRD data that show only (0002) and (0004) reflections in an unspecified 2θ window. No full-range scan, rocking curve, pole figure, or cross-sectional TEM is presented to exclude the tetragonal DO22 allotrope, Mn5Ge3, or Mn-rich precipitates. This is load-bearing because the measured weak ferromagnetism and the anomalous Hall signal could be produced by a minority magnetic phase even if the majority phase is DO19. The text itself notes that DO19 and DO22 are related by a structural deformation and that prior films showed mixed phases, so the possibility is not remote. Please add a wide-range XRD pattern, pole-figure or TEM/SAED evidence, and quantitative composition data tied to the (0002) peak shift; the EDX composition is relegated to Fig. S1 and not quantified in the main text.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (3) and inset of Fig. 5(d)] The anomalous Hall resistivity is extracted by subtracting a linear ordinary Hall term ρH B fitted in the high-field region. This assumes a single-band linear OHE; the paper does not report the fitting field range, fit residuals, or uncertainties, and no alternative two-band or nonlinear model is discussed. Because the magnetization is nearly vanishing, the anomalous term is small, so any nonlinearity in the ordinary Hall contribution would directly affect the reported ρAHE (0.41 µΩ·cm at 2 K) and σAHE (11.5 Ω−1·cm−1). Please provide the raw ρxy data with the fitted line, the residuals, and an uncertainty estimate, and verify that the extracted ρAHE is robust to the choice of fitting window.
  3. [§3.3 and Fig. 5(d)] The conclusion states that the AHE 'persists up to room temperature,' but the only quantitative ρAHE value given is at 2 K. The 300 K value is not reported, and the abstract's headline number is also at 2 K. Since room-temperature operation is presented as the technological motivation, please report the room-temperature ρAHE and its temperature dependence (for example, in a table or in supplementary Fig. S4) so that the reader can verify the claim.
  4. [§3.2, Fig. 4(b) and (d)] The magnetization data are presented without error bars and without a description of the diamagnetic subtraction procedure beyond a one-sentence statement. The reported saturated moments (21 emu/cm3 at 300 K for 550 °C and 18.2 emu/cm3 for 650 °C) and the per-Mn moments (0.047 and 0.03 µB) are central to the claim of a nearly vanishing magnetization, and the raw M(H) loops after subtraction should be shown. Similarly, the TN = 381.2 K value extracted from Eq. (1) is reported without fit range or uncertainty. Please quantify the substrate contribution and provide uncertainties for Ms and TN.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The term γT^0.5 implies that γ has units of µΩ·cm·K^-0.5, but the text lists γ = −0.1659 µΩ·cm; please correct the units or the expression.
  2. [Fig. 6] The text refers to Fig. 6(i–m), but the caption lists only panels (i), (j), (l), and (m); panel (k) appears to be missing from the caption.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical errors, including 'quatum' in the Introduction, 'surface surface' in the Conclusion, 'scaterring' and 'stochiometry' in §3.3, and 'Desire' in the Introduction; a careful proofread is needed.
  4. [Fig. 5(d) caption] The caption uses ρAxy while the text uses ρAHE_xy for the anomalous Hall resistivity; please unify the notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: measurements, empirical fits, and DFT are independent inputs; self-citation is methodological only.

full rationale

The paper does not derive any central claim from an input that is equivalent to the claim. The anomalous Hall resistivity extraction (Sec. 3.3) uses the standard antisymmetric combination rho_xy(B)=1/2(rho_xy(+B)-rho_xy(-B)) and subtracts the high-field linear ordinary-Hall slope to obtain rho_AHE; this is a conventional decomposition, not a fit that forces the claimed 0.41 microOhm cm value. The empirical fits (Eq. 1 for TN and Eq. 2 for rho_xx) are descriptive and benchmarked against literature values (TN=381.2 K vs bulk), so they are not predictions constructed from their own outputs. The DFT band structures (Sec. 3.4) use standard PBE+U (Ueff=3 eV) and are used to interpret the observed STS dip and transport as consistent with Weyl crossings; the calculations were not tuned to reproduce the measured AHE, and the interpretation is an external-theory comparison rather than a self-definitional loop. The single-phase DO19 assignment rests on XRD (0002)/(0004) reflections; while this evidentiary basis is limited (a correctness risk, as the reader's take notes), the phase assignment is an experimental claim, not a derived quantity defined by the transport data. The only self-citation is Ref. [41], used for PLD target and STM constant-current mode methodology; it does not carry the central argument. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the conclusion. Hence there is no circular step.

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

The central claims sit on three pillars: phase purity of the grown film, the two-component Hall model, and the DFT+U description of Mn 3d electrons. The first is the most fragile because the evidence is limited to a narrow XRD scan.

free parameters (4)
  • Hubbard U (Ueff) in DFT+U = 3 eV
    Chosen for Mn-3d electrons in all VASP calculations; affects the band structure and topological character of the computed phases.
  • Resistivity fit coefficients (rho0, alpha, beta, gamma) in Eq. (2) = rho0 = 181.7 uOhm-cm, alpha = 9.3e-4 uOhm-cm/K, beta = 6.4e-6 uOhm-cm/K^2, gamma = -0.1659 uOhm-cm
    Fitted to the measured rho_xx(T) for the 650C film to infer scattering mechanisms.
  • Power-law fit parameters for TN (M0, beta, TN) = TN = 381.2 K
    Fitted to ZFC magnetization using M(T) = M0(1 - T/TN)^beta to estimate the Neel temperature.
  • Ordinary Hall slope rhoH used to extract rhoAHE = not stated numerically
    Fitted to high-field rho_xy(B) after antisymmetrization; the anomalous Hall resistivity and carrier concentration (~1e23 cm^-3) depend on this subtraction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The films are single-phase hexagonal DO19 Mn3Ge with no detectable DO22 or impurity phases.
    Central to assigning the transport and magnetic signals to the chiral Kagome antiferromagnet; based only on a limited XRD scan showing (0002)/(0004) reflections.
  • domain assumption The transverse resistivity is described by rho_xy = rH B + 4pi rho_s M (Eq. 3), with a linear ordinary Hall background in the high-field regime.
    Used to separate ordinary and anomalous Hall contributions; if the Hall effect is nonlinear (multi-band), the extracted rhoAHE is not well defined.
  • domain assumption The dip in dI/dV near the Fermi level arises from Weyl/Dirac crossings near the K point.
    Used to claim topological electronic structure in the films; the paper states it is 'likely' rather than proven by momentum-resolved spectroscopy.
  • domain assumption DFT with PBE and DFT+U (Ueff = 3 eV) adequately describes the correlated Mn-3d electrons.
    The band structure and doping-induced gap are computed under this approximation; results are not benchmarked against experiment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anomalous Hall effect in highly c-plane oriented Mn$_{3}$Ge/Si(100) thin films grown by pulsed laser deposition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OSG56AI5

@misc{pith2026250200809,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anomalous Hall effect in highly c-plane oriented Mn$_3$Ge/Si(100) thin films grown by pulsed laser deposition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OSG56AI5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00809}
}
abstract

Antiferromagnetic Mn$_{3}$Ge with a non-collinear Kagome structures present exciting prospects for exploring Berry curvature driven anomalous Hall effects (AHE). Despite substantial progress in bulk systems, the synthesis of crystalline thin films directly on silicon with a hexagonal phase presents a particular challenge unless a buffer layer is employed. In this study, we report the synthesis of single phase c-plane oriented hexagonal Mn$_{3}$Ge(0001) films on Si(100) using pulsed laser deposition. Under suitable growth conditions, we obtain layer-by-layer films with atomically flat surfaces and interfaces. High-resolution scanning tunneling microscopy study reveals the detail surface atomic structures, where the surface Mn atoms spontaneously arrange into a Kagome lattice. Tunneling spectroscopy (dI/dV) measurement on the atomically resolved Kagome surface show a minima in local density of states near the Fermi level, likely originated from the Weyl crossings near K points. Despite the nearly vanishing magnetization, magnetotransport measurements in 30 nm $Mn_{3}$Ge(0001) films show anomalous Hall resistivity up to 0.41 ($\mu\Omega\cdot\text{cm}$) at 2 K. Our \textit{ab initio} calculations shed further light on the existence of topological features and the band structures in Mn$_{3+x}$Ge$_{1-x}$ with increasing Mn concentration $x$. The anomalous Hall response at room temperature in crystalline Mn$_{3}$Ge films on Si(100) offer promising potential for the development of antiferromagnetic spintronics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00809 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Structural characterization of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Constant current STM images of 30 nm thick Mn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Atomically resolved Topographic image of 30nm thick Mn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: In-plane magnetization measurements on 30 nm thick [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Magneto-transport studies on 30 nm thick [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: A few possible chiral antiferromagnetic arrangements of Mn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    INTRODUCTION Non-collinear antiferromagnets (AFM) with chiral- spin ordering in M n3X (where X = Ga, Ge, Sn) family materials are attracting significant research focus, with the promise of hosting a large anomalous Hall effect (AHE) at room temperature, despite their vanishingly small net magnetization [1–5]. This has been suggested as a pathway to a numb...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    All these films were syn- thesized without using any metallic buffer layer from a single-source Mn rich target with a pulsed KrF excimer laser source of wavelength 248 nm [41]

    EXPERIMENT AL METHODS Mn3Ge thin films were grown on single crystalline Si(100) substrate by pulsed laser deposition at base pres- sure below 1 × 10−6 mbar. All these films were syn- thesized without using any metallic buffer layer from a single-source Mn rich target with a pulsed KrF excimer laser source of wavelength 248 nm [41]. The target- substrate d...

    work page

  3. [3]

    RESUL TS AND DISCUSSIONS 3.1. Mode of growth and structural characterization Despite advances in synthesizing and studying mag- netotransport in bulk Mn 3Ge, the relationship between structural parameters, magnetic ordering, and trans- port properties in thin films remains unresolved. Pre- vious reports show discrepancies regarding the influence of growth...

    work page

  4. [4]

    CONCLUSION Highly c-axis oriented M n3Ge thin films with the pure hexagonal structure were successfully synthesized on Si(100) substrate using pulse laser deposition. Our detailed X-ray scattering and atomic force microscopy studies establish a suitable growth condition to obtain layer-by-layer films with flat surfaces and well-defined interfaces. High-re...

    work page

  5. [5]

    DA T A A V AILABILITY ST A TEMENT The authors declare that the data that support the findings are available within the article and supplemen- tary section

    work page

  6. [6]

    I.S is grateful for fel- lowship assistance from the MHRD, Government of In- dia

    ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was supported by the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) under SERB Core Re- search Grant(CRG/2023/008193). I.S is grateful for fel- lowship assistance from the MHRD, Government of In- dia. All authors acknowledge the Department of Physics, IIT Delhi for providing XRD, PLD, MPMS and PPMS facility. All authors sincerely ...

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    A. K. Nayak, J. E. Fischer, Y. Sun, B. Yan, J. Karel, A. C. Komarek, C. Shekhar, N. Kumar, W. Schnelle, J. K¨ ubler, et al., Science advances2, e1501870 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    H. Yang, Y. Sun, Y. Zhang, W.-J. Shi, S. S. Parkin, and B. Yan, New Journal of Physics 19, 015008 (2017)

    2017

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    T. Chen, T. Tomita, S. Minami, M. Fu, T. Koretsune, M. Kitatani, I. Muhammad, D. Nishio-Hamane, R. Ishii, F. Ishii, et al., Nature communications 12, 572 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    ˇSmejkal, A

    L. ˇSmejkal, A. H. MacDonald, J. Sinova, S. Nakatsuji, and T. Jungwirth, Nature Reviews Materials 7, 482 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Kiyohara, T

    N. Kiyohara, T. Tomita, and S. Nakatsuji, Physical Re- view Applied 5, 064009 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Kimata, H

    M. Kimata, H. Chen, K. Kondou, S. Sugimoto, P. K. Muduli, M. Ikhlas, Y. Omori, T. Tomita, A. H. Mac- Donald, S. Nakatsuji, et al., Nature 565, 627 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    D. Hong, N. Anand, C. Liu, H. Liu, I. Arslan, J. E. Pear- son, A. Bhattacharya, and J. Jiang, Physical Review Ma- terials 4, 094201 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    M. Wu, H. Isshiki, T. Chen, T. Higo, S. Nakatsuji, and Y. Otani, Applied Physics Letters 116 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    B. A. Bernevig, C. Felser, and H. Beidenkopf, Nature 603, 41 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Classen and J

    L. Classen and J. J. Betouras, Annual Review of Con- 11 densed Matter Physics 16 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Sun, H. Yang, J. ˇZelezn` y, S. P. Parkin, C. Felser, and B. Yan, Physical Review B 95, 075128 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    J.-R. Soh, F. De Juan, N. Qureshi, H. Jacobsen, H.-Y. Wang, Y.-F. Guo, and A. Boothroyd, Physical Review B 101, 140411 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    X. Li, J. Koo, Z. Zhu, K. Behnia, and B. Yan, Nature communications 14, 1642 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Ikeda, M

    T. Ikeda, M. Tsunoda, M. Oogane, S. Oh, T. Morita, and Y. Ando, AIP Advances 10 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    D. Gao, Z. Peng, N. Zhang, Y. Xie, Y. Yang, W. Yang, S. Xia, W. Yan, L. Deng, T. Liu, et al., Applied Physics Letters 121 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Khadka, T

    D. Khadka, T. Thapaliya, S. Hurtado Parra, X. Han, J. Wen, R. F. Need, P. Khanal, W. Wang, J. Zang, J. M. Kikkawa, et al., Science advances 6, eabc1977 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    J. Liu, Z. Zhang, M. Fu, X. Zhao, R. Xie, Q. Cao, L. Bai, S. Kang, Y. Chen, S. Yan, et al., Results in Physics 52, 106803 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    J. M. Taylor, A. Markou, E. Lesne, P. K. Sivakumar, C. Luo, F. Radu, P. Werner, C. Felser, and S. S. Parkin, Physical Review B 101, 094404 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Ikeda, M

    T. Ikeda, M. Tsunoda, M. Oogane, S. Oh, T. Morita, and Y. Ando, Applied Physics Letters 113 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Z. Zhao, Q. Guo, F. Chen, K. Zhang, and Y. Jiang, Phys- ica B: Condensed Matter 604, 412692 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    H. Xie, X. Chen, Q. Zhang, Z. Mu, X. Zhang, B. Yan, and Y. Wu, Nature communications 13, 5744 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    K¨ ubler and C

    J. K¨ ubler and C. Felser, Europhysics Letters120, 47002 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    N. H. Sung, F. Ronning, J. D. Thompson, and E. D. Bauer, Applied Physics Letters 112 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Manna, Y

    K. Manna, Y. Sun, L. Muechler, J. K¨ ubler, and C. Felser, Nature Reviews Materials 3, 244 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Kirste, J

    G. Kirste, J. Freudenberger, and S. Wurmehl, Acta Ma- terialia 258, 119205 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Zhang, B

    D. Zhang, B. Yan, S.-C. Wu, J. K¨ ubler, G. Kreiner, S. S. Parkin, and C. Felser, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 25, 206006 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    Berche, J.-C

    A. Berche, J.-C. Tedenac, and P. Jund, Intermetallics47, 23 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    I. O. Olayiwola, C. R. Santill´ an-Rodr ´ ıguez, J. A. Matutes-Aquino, I. M. Cota-Mart ´ ınez, R. M. Guti´ errez- P´ erez, J. T. Holgu ´ ın-Momaca, and S. F. Olive-M´ endez, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 955, 170279 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Ogasawara, J.-y

    T. Ogasawara, J.-y. Kim, Y. Ando, and A. Hirohata, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 473, 7 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    X. Wang, C. Zhang, Q. Yang, L. Liu, D. Pan, X. Chen, J. Deng, T. Zhai, and H.-X. Deng, APL Materials 9 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    X. Wang, S. Cui, Q. Yang, L. Ma, J. Xu, G. Xu, Z. Shang, D. Liu, J. Zhao, J. Deng, et al., Applied Surface Science 602, 154247 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    D. Hong, C. Liu, J. Wen, Q. Du, B. Fisher, J. Jiang, J. E. Pearson, and A. Bhattacharya, APL Materials 10 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Takeuchi, H

    Y. Takeuchi, H. Sepehri-Amin, S. Sugimoto, T. Hiroto, and S. Kasai, APL Materials 12 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    H.-W. Bang, W. Yoo, C. Kim, S. Lee, J. Gu, Y. Park, K. Lee, and M.-H. Jung, Applied Physics Letters 115 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Y. Xing, J. Shen, H. Chen, L. Huang, Y. Gao, Q. Zheng, Y.-Y. Zhang, G. Li, B. Hu, G. Qian, et al., Nature com- munications 11, 5613 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    H. Li, H. Zhao, Q. Yin, Q. Wang, Z. Ren, S. Sharma, H. Lei, Z. Wang, and I. Zeljkovic, Scientific Reports 12, 14525 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Lin, J.-H

    Z. Lin, J.-H. Choi, Q. Zhang, W. Qin, S. Yi, P. Wang, L. Li, Y. Wang, H. Zhang, Z. Sun, et al., Physical review letters 121, 096401 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    L. Ye, M. Kang, J. Liu, F. Von Cube, C. R. Wicker, T. Suzuki, C. Jozwiak, A. Bostwick, E. Rotenberg, D. C. Bell, et al., Nature 555, 638 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    L. Jiao, Q. Xu, Y. Cheon, Y. Sun, C. Felser, E. Liu, and S. Wirth, Physical Review B 99, 245158 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Zhang, B

    H. Zhang, B. D. Oli, Q. Zou, X. Guo, Z. Wang, and L. Li, Nature Communications 14, 6167 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Sinha, S

    I. Sinha, S. Sinha, S. Naskar, and S. Manna, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Physical review b 59, 1758 (1999)

    1999

  41. [49]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Physical review B50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  42. [50]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Physical re- view letters 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  43. [51]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl, O. Jepsen, and O. K. Andersen, Physical Review B 49, 16223 (1994)

    1994

  44. [52]

    S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. Humphreys, and A. P. Sutton, Physical Review B 57, 1505 (1998)

    1998

  45. [53]

    Kr´ en and G

    E. Kr´ en and G. K´ ad´ ar, Solid State Communications8, 1653 (1970)

    1970

  46. [54]

    Ohoyama, K

    T. Ohoyama, K. Kanematsu, et al., Journal of the Phys- ical Society of Japan 16, 352 (1961)

    1961

  47. [55]

    J. Qian, A. Nayak, G. Kreiner, W. Schnelle, and C. Felser, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 47, 305001 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    J.-Y. Yoon, Y. Takeuchi, S. DuttaGupta, Y. Yamane, S. Kanai, J. Ieda, H. Ohno, and S. Fukami, AIP Advances 11 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    N. A. Kaufmann, L. Lahourcade, B. Hourahine, D. Mar- tin, and N. Grandjean, Journal of Crystal Growth 433, 36 (2016)

    2016

  50. [58]

    Yang, C.-C

    H.-H. Yang, C.-C. Lee, Y. Yoshida, M. Ikhlas, T. Tomita, A. Nugroho, T. Ozaki, S. Nakatsuji, and Y. Hasegawa, Scientific Reports 9, 9677 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    Jiang, Y

    Y. Jiang, Y. Sun, M. Chen, Y. Wang, Z. Li, C. Song, K. He, L. Wang, X. Chen, Q.-K. Xue, et al., Physical Review Letters 108, 066809 (2012)

    2012

  52. [60]

    Zhang, B

    D. Zhang, B. Yan, S.-C. Wu, J. K¨ ubler, G. Kreiner, S. S. P. Parkin, and C. Felser, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter 25, 206006 (2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    H. Yang, Y. Sun, Y. Zhang, W.-J. Shi, S. S. P. Parkin, and B. Yan, New Journal of Physics 19, 015008 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Guo and T.-C

    G.-Y. Guo and T.-C. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 96, 224415 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    A. K. Nayak, J. E. Fischer, Y. Sun, B. Yan, J. Karel, A. C. Komarek, C. Shekhar, N. Kumar, W. Schnelle, J. K¨ ubler, et al., Science Advances2, e1501870 (2016)

    2016

  56. [64]

    Yamada, H

    N. Yamada, H. Sakai, H. Mori, and T. Ohoyama, Physica B+ C 149, 311 (1988)

    1988

  57. [65]

    X. Wang, D. Pan, Q. Zeng, X. Chen, H. Wang, D. Zhao, Z. Xu, Q. Yang, J. Deng, T. Zhai, et al., Nanoscale 13, 2601 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    Tomiyoshi, S

    S. Tomiyoshi, S. Abe, Y. Yamaguchi, H. Yamauchi, and H. Yamamoto, Journal of magnetism and magnetic ma- terials 54, 1001 (1986). 12

    1986

  59. [67]

    Ghosh, A

    S. Ghosh, A. Low, S. Ghorai, K. Mandal, and S. Thiru- pathaiah, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 35, 485701 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    X. Wang, H. Yan, X. Zhou, H. Chen, Z. Feng, P. Qin, Z. Meng, L. Liu, and Z. Liu, Materials Today Physics28, 100878 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    V. Rai, S. Jana, M. Meven, R. Dutta, J. Perßon, and S. Nandi, Physical Review B 106, 195114 (2022)

    2022

  62. [70]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi, Journal of applied crystallog- raphy 44, 1272 (2011)

    2011

  63. [71]

    Y. Wu, J. Chen, X. Xu, J. Miao, and Y. Jiang, physica status solidi (a) 219, 2100643 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    P. Qin, Z. Feng, X. Zhou, H. Guo, J. Wang, H. Yan, X. Wang, H. Chen, X. Zhang, H. Wu, et al., ACS nano 14, 6242 (2020)

    2020

  65. [73]

    A. K. Mitchell and L. Fritz, Physical Review B 92, 121109 (2015)

    2015

  66. [74]

    Yanagisawa, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 84, 074705 (2015)

    T. Yanagisawa, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 84, 074705 (2015)

    2015

  67. [75]

    Lee, J.-H

    K.-Y. Lee, J.-H. Yun, J. H. Kim, Y. A. Salawu, H.-J. Kim, J. J. Lee, H. Lee, and J.-S. Rhyee, Materials Today Physics 26, 100732 (2022)

    2022

  68. [76]

    Kurosawa, T

    S. Kurosawa, T. Tomita, I. Muhammad, M. Fu, A. Sakai, and S. Nakatsuji, arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.00882 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    A. Low, T. K. Bhowmik, S. Ghosh, and S. Thirupathaiah, Physical Review B 109, 195104 (2024)

    2024

  70. [78]

    Abrikosov, Physical Review B 58, 2788 (1998)

    A. Abrikosov, Physical Review B 58, 2788 (1998)

    1998

  71. [79]

    J. Feng, Y. Pang, D. Wu, Z. Wang, H. Weng, J. Li, X. Dai, Z. Fang, Y. Shi, and L. Lu, Physical Review B 92, 081306 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

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