Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 71 references

Large Nernst effect in Te-based van der Waals materials

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that five layered van der Waals tellurides share a large linear Nernst response whose strength tracks mobility divided by Fermi energy, but with a prefactor that deviates from the established Fermi-liquid scaling law.

desk verdict Solid new Nernst data across five vdW tellurides, but the claimed new μ/EF scaling law is not established: one Fermi energy is fitted to the trend, and the new prefactor is never quantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19660 v1 pith:P3N6A5GE submitted 2024-11-29 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

M. Behnami , M. Gillig , A.G. Moghaddam , D.V. Efremov , G. Shipunov , B.R. Piening , I.V. Morozov , S. Aswartham
show 9 more authors
J. Dufouleur K. Ochkan J. Zemen V. Kocsis C. Hess M. Putti B. Büchner F. Caglieris H. Reichlova
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords NernsteffectvanderWaalstelluridesWeylsemimetalWTe2MoTe2TaIrTe4thermoelectricconversionFermiliquidscaling
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 systematic measurements of the Nernst effect — the voltage that appears perpendicular to both a temperature gradient and a magnetic field — in five layered tellurides that share the same van der Waals crystal structure: WTe2, MoTe2, W0.65Mo0.35Te2, TaIrTe4, and TaRhTe4. The authors find large linear-in-field Nernst signals in the binary compounds (up to about 600–700 uV/K in WTe2 at 10 T) and moderate linear signals in the ternary compounds, plus a superlinear cubic-in-field component in the ternary compounds at low temperature. Across all five materials, the linear component correlates with mobility divided by Fermi energy, $\mu/E_F$, following the same functional form as the standard Nernst scaling law but with a different prefactor. The paper attributes this systematic enhancement to the shared band structure: Weyl-like linear dispersions near the Fermi energy combined with strong electron–hole compensation. The response also persists in a 20-nm exfoliated flake of TaIrTe4, suggesting the effect is robust enough for device applications.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a two-carrier semiclassical Boltzmann model for the Nernst coefficient. Up to third order in magnetic field it gives $N \approx (\pi^2/6)(k_B/e)(k_B T)\{ (2\mu B\,\partial_\epsilon(\sigma_e\sigma_h)/\sigma_0^2)[1-(x_\sigma\mu B)^2] + (\partial_\epsilon\mu)B[1-(\mu B)^2(2-x_\sigma^2)]\} + O(B^5)$, where $\sigma_e$ and $\sigma_h$ are the electron and hole conductivities, $\sigma_0=\sigma_e+\sigma_h$, and $x_\sigma=(\sigma_e-\sigma_h)/\sigma_0$. This expression shows how electron–hole compensation can produce both the linear and the cubic-in-field terms, with relative signs set by the energy derivatives of the mobility and the two-band conductivity product at $E_F$. For the linear term, the comparison standard is the Fermi-liquid formula $N/B = (\pi^2/3)(k_B/e)(k_B T/E_F)\,\mu$; the paper evaluates this using mobilities extracted from Hall and longitudinal resistivity in a single-band approximation and Fermi energies taken from published density-functional calculations, with the alloy's $E_F$ estimated to match the observed trend.

What would settle it

Perform quantum-oscillation or angle-resolved photoemission measurements on the identical single crystals — especially W0.65Mo0.35Te2, whose Fermi energy is currently fitted — and re-plot the data as $N/(TB)$ versus $\mu/E_F$ using the measured Fermi energies; if the five points then collapse onto the published universal line, the claimed new scaling factor is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the linear Nernst coefficient of this telluride family obeys the Fermi-liquid scaling form $N/B = (\pi^2/3)(k_B/e)(k_B T/E_F)\,\mu$ but with a prefactor that is systematically different from the universal curve established for bismuth, cuprates, and other semimetals. The linear term is large in WTe2 and MoTe2, reaching about 700 uV/K and 180 uV/K respectively at 10 T, and smaller but still significant in the ternary compounds; the three ternary compounds also show an extra $B^3$ term at low temperature. The authors show that the linear component correlates with carrier mobility across the family, whereas the nonlinear component does not, and they demonstrate through the decomposition $N = S(\alpha_{xy}/\alpha_{xx} - \sigma_{xy}/\sigma_{xx})$ that the $B^3$ term must come from the thermoelectric angle, not the Hall angle. They conclude that the shared enhancement is intrinsic to the band structure — Weyl-like linear dispersion near $E_F$ plus almost compensated electron and hole pockets — and that the persistence of the Nernst signal in a 20-nm exfoliated flake of TaIrTe4 shows the effect is not a bulk artifact.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Fermi energies used to place the five compounds on the scaling plot are correct even though none of them is measured in this work: three come from published calculations and the value for the mixed compound W0.65Mo0.35Te2 is chosen after the fact to match the reported trend, so inaccurate Fermi energies could erase the claimed deviation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the scaling holds, the Nernst coefficient in this family is set by mobility and Fermi energy, so improving crystal quality (higher mobility) should push the linear Nernst signal in WTe2 and MoTe2 toward or beyond the observed 700 uV/K.
  • The absence of a cubic term in the binary compounds and its presence in the ternary compounds at low temperature means the superlinear component tracks carrier compensation, offering a transport signature that distinguishes compensated from uncompensated tellurides.
  • Since the Nernst response survives in an exfoliated 20-nm flake of TaIrTe4, the family is compatible with thin-film thermoelectric devices that convert waste heat into a transverse voltage using a single material.
  • The deviation from the established scaling prefactor implies that the universal Nernst curve needs a material-dependent factor for semimetals with linear dispersion, which would make the Nernst effect a sharper probe of band structure and scattering mechanisms than previously assumed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same $\mu/E_F$ scaling could be tested on other compensated semimetals with directly measured Fermi energies — such as Dirac semimetals like Cd3As2 or Na3Bi — to decide whether the enhanced prefactor is specific to tellurides or generic to linearly dispersing compensated systems.
  • Beyond the paper, the cubic Nernst term could be used as a quick experimental diagnostic for strong electron–hole compensation in newly synthesized layered materials: a superlinear low-field Nernst response would flag a compensated two-band state without a full Hall-tomography campaign.
  • Beyond the paper, if the prefactor change is caused by inelastic scattering rather than band structure, then temperature-dependent measurements should show the prefactor drifting with scattering rate; this gives a direct way to separate the two proposed mechanisms.
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. The paper reports systematic magneto-thermoelectric measurements on five layered van der Waals tellurides: WTe2, MoTe2, W0.65Mo0.35Te2, TaIrTe4, and TaRhTe4. Large and linear-in-field Nernst coefficients are observed in WTe2 and MoTe2, while the three ternary compounds show smaller linear responses accompanied by a superlinear component at low temperature. The data are decomposed as N = aB + cB^3. The authors find a correlation between the linear coefficient and mobility and plot N/(TB) against mu/EF, claiming a scaling law that deviates from the established Behnia-Aubin line by a different prefactor. They attribute the enhancement to the shared band-structure features of this family, specifically electron-hole compensation and Weyl cones near the Fermi level. A Nernst signal is also demonstrated in an exfoliated TaIrTe4 flake using Joule-heating second-harmonic detection.

Significance. If substantiated, the proposed new scaling of the linear Nernst coefficient with mu/EF would be an interesting addition to the semiclassical Nernst-scaling literature and would strengthen the case for van der Waals tellurides in thermoelectric applications. The paper has clear strengths: the same experimental protocol is used across five isostructural compounds, the linear/cubic decomposition is explicit, the flake device provides a useful proof of concept, and the authors are candid about the provenance of the Fermi energies. However, the central quantitative claim currently rests on only five points, one of which has its Fermi energy chosen to match the trend, and no quantitative fit or error propagation is provided. The significance is therefore conditional on the scaling analysis being made non-circular and properly quantified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 3b] The central scaling claim is partially circular as written. In the paragraph beginning 'Due to difficulties to calculate the EF of the off-stoichiometric W0.65Mo0.35Te2', the authors state that EF for this compound was 'estimated ... which would be required to match the trend displayed in Fig.3b'. Since this compound is one of only five points in Fig. 3b, its placement on the trend cannot be used as evidence for that trend. Please remove this point from the scaling analysis, or determine its Fermi energy independently (e.g., from quantum oscillations, ARPES, or Hall density combined with a band-structure calculation), and rerun the analysis without the fitted point.
  2. [Section III, paragraph on the linear contribution and Fig. 3b] The claimed 'different scaling factor' is never quantified. The paper does not fit a slope or intercept to the five points in Fig. 3b, does not report a correlation coefficient or confidence interval, and does not compare a fitted prefactor with the theoretical value of the Behnia-Aubin line. On a log-log plot, a multiplicative offset in prefactor and a change in functional form cannot be distinguished by eye. Please provide a quantitative fit of log[N/(TB)] versus log(mu/EF), with uncertainties, and state explicitly whether the data are consistent with a line of slope unity but different intercept, or with a genuinely different scaling exponent.
  3. [Section III, 'We have used the value of the Fermi Energy ...' and Fig. 3b] The x-axis values for WTe2, MoTe2, TaIrTe4, and TaRhTe4 are taken from published DFT band structures, not measured in this work, and no error bars are given for these Fermi energies. Because the scaling variable is mu/EF, a common multiplicative error in the DFT energies shifts all points horizontally; for plausible factors of 2-3, the points could move close to the red line and the claimed deviation could disappear. The authors need to quantify the uncertainty in EF and show that the conclusion is robust within that uncertainty, or replace the literature values with experimentally determined Fermi energies.
  4. [Section III, Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b] With only five compounds, one of which is placed on the trend by construction, the evidence for a material-family correlation is marginal. Figure 3a shows a visual increase of the linear Nernst coefficient with mobility, but no correlation coefficient, fit, or residual analysis is provided, and the points span only about one order of magnitude in mu/EF. The statement that the data 'confirm an evident correlation' is stronger than the analysis supports. Please report the effective number of independent points, the fit quality, and the result of excluding the alloy point.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References [56], [60], and [55]] Reference [60] has no journal, volume, or page; reference [56] lacks volume and page details; reference [55] gives no DOI or URL. Please complete these entries.
  2. [Abstract and Fig. 2 caption] The text states that the maximum Nernst coefficient in WTe2 is about 600 microV/K at T = 20 K, while the Fig. 2 caption reports 700 microV/K at T = 14 K. Please harmonize the quoted values and temperatures.
  3. [Section III, 'The linear dispersion of the Weyl cones contributes to high mobility'] This sentence presents a causal statement about Weyl cones and mobility; it is speculative and should be explicitly framed as a hypothesis or supported by a reference.
  4. [Data Availability statement] The statement 'available from the corresponding authors upon request' is weaker than current journal norms and prevents independent checking of the N = aB + cB^3 fits and the mobility extraction. Please deposit the raw data and analysis files in a permanent repository.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed new μ/EF scaling is partly circular: for W0.65Mo0.35Te2, the Fermi energy is chosen to match the trend in Fig. 3b, placing that data point on the claimed scaling line by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III (Discussion), paragraph describing Fig. 3b]
    "Due to difficulties to calculate the EF of the off-stochiometric W 0.65Mo0.35Te2 compound we estimated the EF which would be required to match the trend displayed in Fig.3b. The estimated EF ∼ 110 meV is realistic and it is between the values in the parental compounds WTe2 and MoTe2 [55]."

    The Fermi energy is the x-axis variable of the scaling plot (μ/EF). For W0.65Mo0.35Te2, the paper does not measure or calculate EF independently; instead it chooses the value 'required to match the trend displayed in Fig.3b'. The alloy data point is therefore placed on the claimed scaling line by construction, so it cannot serve as independent evidence for the paper's central claim of 'a new scaling factor' that 'significantly differs from the Nernst scaling prediction'. The other four compounds use literature DFT Fermi energies, giving the overall comparison some independent content, but the fitted alloy point materially anchors the claimed deviation and is one of only five points in the central scaling figure.

full rationale

The measured Nernst curves, the linear-plus-cubic decomposition N = aB + cB^3, and the mobility estimates from resistivity and Hall data are internally consistent and are not circular: the linear coefficient a is extracted from the same data as the mobility, but that is an empirical correlation, not a derivation of the Nernst coefficient from mobility. The main circularity is confined to the Fermi-energy input in the scaling plot. For WTe2, MoTe2, TaIrTe4, and TaRhTe4, EF is taken from published DFT band-structure calculations (refs. 29, 50, 51), which are external to the present measurements; using those values to test a scaling law is legitimate, though the values are not measured here. However, for W0.65Mo0.35Te2 the paper explicitly states that EF was 'estimated ... which would be required to match the trend displayed in Fig.3b', making that point consistent with the claimed trend by definition. Because that fitted point is one of the five data points supporting the claimed deviation from the established Behnia-Aubin scaling, the central scaling claim is partially circular. The lack of deposited data and the absence of a quantified new scaling factor are reproducibility and rigor concerns, but they are not themselves circularity. Overall, the central claim is not fully forced: four literature-based points and the literature WTe2 point from ref. 70 provide independent anchors. The circularity score is therefore moderate, reflecting that one data point is fitted to the very trend it is used to support.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main free parameter is the Fermi energy of W0.65Mo0.35Te2, which is chosen to match the scaling trend. The scaling analysis also leans on DFT Fermi energies and on standard single-band and two-carrier transport formulas. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Fermi energy of W0.65Mo0.35Te2 = ~110 meV
    The paper states this value is 'estimated ... which would be required to match the trend displayed in Fig.3b', so this point is placed on the scaling line by construction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Fermi energies for the four stoichiometric compounds are taken from published DFT calculations (refs 29, 50, 51).
    The x-axis of the scaling plot uses EF; these values are not measured in this paper.
  • domain assumption The standard Nernst scaling formula N/B = (pi^2/3)(kB/e)(kBT/EF) mu applies to these multiband materials.
    Used to interpret the linear Nernst coefficient; the paper itself later argues that the assumptions of this formula are violated, which is internally inconsistent.
  • domain assumption The two-carrier Boltzmann derivation leading to Eq. 2, including equal electron and hole mobilities, is correct.
    Used to explain the sign and magnitude of the cubic Nernst term; the details are only in the supplementary material, which is not accessible here.
  • domain assumption Single-band mobility estimates agree with two-carrier estimates within error bars.
    The authors state this agreement and then use single-band mobility for all compounds in the scaling analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large Nernst effect in Te-based van der Waals materials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P3N6A5GE

@misc{pith2026241119660,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large Nernst effect in Te-based van der Waals materials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P3N6A5GE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19660}
}
abstract

Layered van der Waals tellurides reveal topologically non-trivial properties that give rise to unconventional magneto-transport phenomena. Additionally, their semimetallic character with high mobility makes them promising candidates for large magneto-thermoelectric effects. Remarkable studies on the very large and unconventional Nernst effect in WTe$_2$ have been reported, raising questions about whether this property is shared across the entire family of van der Waals tellurides. In this study, systematic measurements of the Nernst effect in telluride van der Waals Weyl semimetals are presented. Large linear Nernst coefficients in WTe$_2$ and MoTe$_2$ are identified, and moderate Nernst coefficients with non-linear behavior in magnetic fields are observed in W$_{0.65}$Mo$_{0.35}$Te$_2$, TaIrTe$_4$, and TaRhTe$_4$. Within this sample set, a correlation between the dominant linear-in-magnetic-field component of the Nernst coefficient and mobility is established, aligning with the established Nernst scaling framework, though with a different scaling factor compared to existing literature. This enhancement might be caused by the shared favorable electronic band structure of this family of materials. Conversely, the non-linear component of the Nernst effect in a magnetic field could not be correlated with mobility. This non-linear term is almost absent in the binary compounds, suggesting a multiband origin and strong compensation between electron-like and hole-like carriers. This comprehensive study highlights the potential of van der Waals tellurides for thermoelectric conversion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19660 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Shared structure of the studied member of the Te-based family. The parental com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Temperature-dependent resistivity for all studied samples. The MoTe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparing the linear in B contribution of the Nernst effect versus mobility at T=20 K and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Nernst effect in exfoliated flake of TaIrTe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ajayan, P

    P. Ajayan, P. Kim, and K. Banerjee, Phys. Today 69, 38 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Novoselov, o

    K. Novoselov, o. A. Mishchenko, o. A. Carvalho, and A. Castro Neto, Science 353, aac9439 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    A. K. Geim and I. V. Grigorieva, Nature 499, 419 (2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    Dorrell, H

    W. Dorrell, H. Pirie, S. M. Gardezi, N. C. Drucker, and J. E. Hoffman, Physical Review B 101, 121103 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    S. Tang, C. Zhang, D. Wong, Z. Pedramrazi, H.-Z. Tsai, C. Jia, B. Moritz, M. Claassen, H. Ryu, S. Kahn, et al., Nature Physics 13, 683 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Song, Z.-Y

    Y.-H. Song, Z.-Y. Jia, D. Zhang, X.-Y. Zhu, Z.-Q. Shi, H. Wang, L. Zhu, Q.-Q. Yuan, H. Zhang, D.-Y. Xing, et al., Nature Communications 9, 4071 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    M. N. Ali, J. Xiong, S. Flynn, J. Tao, Q. D. Gibson, L. M. Schoop, T. Liang, N. Hal- dolaarachchige, M. Hirschberger, N. P. Ong, et al., Nature 514, 205 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    T. Song, Y. Jia, G. Yu, Y. Tang, P. Wang, R. Singha, X. Gui, A. J. Uzan-Narovlansky, M. Onyszczak, K. Watanabe, et al., Nature Physics 20, 269 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    A. A. Soluyanov, D. Gresch, Z. Wang, Q. Wu, M. Troyer, X. Dai, and B. A. Bernevig, Nature 527, 495 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    P. Li, Y. Wen, X. He, Q. Zhang, C. Xia, Z.-M. Yu, S. A. Yang, Z. Zhu, H. N. Alshareef, and X.-X. Zhang, Nature communications 8, 2150 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    F. Y. Bruno, A. Tamai, Q. Wu, I. Cucchi, C. Barreteau, A. De La Torre, S. M. Walker, S. Ricc` o, Z. Wang, T. Kim,et al., Physical Review B 94, 121112 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Y. Wu, D. Mou, N. H. Jo, K. Sun, L. Huang, S. L. Bud’ko, P. C. Canfield, and A. Kaminski, Physical Review B 94, 121113 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Sun, S.-C

    Y. Sun, S.-C. Wu, M. N. Ali, C. Felser, and B. Yan, Physical Review B 92, 161107 (2015). 16

    2015

  6. [14]

    K. Deng, G. Wan, P. Deng, K. Zhang, S. Ding, E. Wang, M. Yan, H. Huang, H. Zhang, Z. Xu, et al., Nature Physics 12, 1105 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Jiang, Z

    J. Jiang, Z. Liu, Y. Sun, H. Yang, C. Rajamathi, Y. Qi, L. Yang, C. Chen, H. Peng, C. Hwang, et al., Nature communications 8, 13973 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Yan and C

    B. Yan and C. Felser, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 8, 337 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Jia, S.-Y

    S. Jia, S.-Y. Xu, and M. Z. Hasan, Nature materials 15, 1140 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Armitage, E

    N. Armitage, E. Mele, and A. Vishwanath, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 015001 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    A. P. Sakhya, C.-Y. Huang, G. Dhakal, X.-J. Gao, S. Regmi, B. Wang, W. Wen, R.-H. He, X. Yao, R. Smith, et al., Physical Review Materials 7, L051202 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Wuttke, F

    C. Wuttke, F. Caglieris, S. Sykora, F. Scaravaggi, A. U. Wolter, K. Manna, V. S¨ uss, C. Shekhar, C. Felser, B. B¨ uchner,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.01647 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Kononov, G

    A. Kononov, G. Abulizi, K. Qu, J. Yan, D. Mandrus, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and C. Sch¨ onenberger, Nano letters20, 4228 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    K. Kang, T. Li, E. Sohn, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Nature materials 18, 324 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    S. Wu, V. Fatemi, Q. D. Gibson, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, R. J. Cava, and P. Jarillo- Herrero, Science 359, 76 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Liang, Y

    D. Liang, Y. Wang, W. Zhen, J. Yang, S. Weng, X. Yan, Y. Han, W. Tong, W. Zhu, L. Pi, et al., Aip Advances 9 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    T. Ma, H. Chen, K. Yananose, X. Zhou, L. Wang, R. Li, Z. Zhu, Z. Wu, Q.-H. Xu, J. Yu, et al., Nature communications 13, 5465 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    F. Chen, H. Lv, X. Luo, W. Lu, Q. Pei, G. Lin, Y. Han, X. Zhu, W. Song, and Y. Sun, Physical Review B 94, 235154 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Koepernik, D

    K. Koepernik, D. Kasinathan, D. Efremov, S. Khim, S. Borisenko, B. B¨ uchner, and J. van den Brink, Physical Review B 93, 201101 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Haubold, K

    E. Haubold, K. Koepernik, D. Efremov, S. Khim, A. Fedorov, Y. Kushnirenko, J. Van Den Brink, S. Wurmehl, B. B¨ uchner, T. Kim,et al., Physical Review B 95, 241108 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Shipunov, B

    G. Shipunov, B. Piening, C. Wuttke, T. Romanova, A. Sadakov, O. Sobolevskiy, E. Y. Gu- zovsky, A. Usoltsev, V. Pudalov, D. Efremov,et al., The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 12, 6730 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Kumar, C.-H

    D. Kumar, C.-H. Hsu, R. Sharma, T.-R. Chang, P. Yu, J. Wang, G. Eda, G. Liang, and H. Yang, Nature Nanotechnology 16, 421 (2021). 17

    2021

  23. [31]

    Cheng, Y

    B. Cheng, Y. Gao, Z. Zheng, S. Chen, Z. Liu, L. Zhang, Q. Zhu, H. Li, L. Li, and C. Zeng, Nature Communications 15, 5513 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Guo, X.-Q

    P.-J. Guo, X.-Q. Lu, W. Ji, K. Liu, and Z.-Y. Lu, Physical Review B 102, 041109 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    J. Tang, T. S. Ding, H. Chen, A. Gao, T. Qian, Z. Huang, Z. Sun, X. Han, A. Strasser, J. Li, et al., Nature 628, 515 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Bainsla, B

    L. Bainsla, B. Zhao, N. Behera, A. M. Hoque, L. Sj¨ ostr¨ om, A. Martinelli, M. Abdel-Hafiez, J. ˚Akerman, and S. P. Dash, Nature Communications 15, 4649 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Zhang, N

    X. Zhang, N. Mao, O. Janson, J. v. d. Brink, and R. Ray, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11688 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    S. Wu, X. Wang, X. Mi, S. Zheng, K. Yang, Z. Zhou, H. Wang, G. Han, X. Lu, Y. Pan, et al., Advanced Energy Materials , 2400184 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Yamada, T

    R. Yamada, T. Nomoto, A. Miyake, T. Terakawa, A. Kikkawa, R. Arita, M. Tokunaga, Y. Taguchi, Y. Tokura, and M. Hirschberger, Physical Review X 14, 021012 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    T. Feng, Z. Zhou, P. Wang, Z. Liao, Y. Wang, H. Zhao, W. Zhang, and W. Liu, Next Energy 3, 100105 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Uchida, T

    K.-i. Uchida, T. Hirai, F. Ando, and H. Sepehri-Amin, Advanced Energy Materials 14, 2302375 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    W. Zhou, K. Yamamoto, A. Miura, R. Iguchi, Y. Miura, K.-i. Uchida, and Y. Sakuraba, Nature Materials 20, 463 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    S. R. Boona, K. Vandaele, I. N. Boona, D. W. McComb, and J. P. Heremans, Nature com- munications 7, 13714 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Pasquale, Z

    G. Pasquale, Z. Sun, G. Migliato Marega, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and A. Kis, Nature Nanotechnology , 1 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    J. Li, D. Zhai, C. Xiao, and W. Yao, Quantum Frontiers 3, 11 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Y. Pan, B. He, T. Helm, D. Chen, W. Schnelle, and C. Felser, Nature Communications 13, 3909 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Z. Zhu, X. Lin, J. Liu, B. Fauqu´ e, Q. Tao, C. Yang, Y. Shi, and K. Behnia, Physical review letters 114, 176601 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    Sondheimer, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    E. Sondheimer, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 193, 484 (1948)

    1948

  39. [47]

    R. Bel, K. Behnia, and H. Berger, Physical review letters 91, 066602 (2003). 18

    2003

  40. [48]

    Sharma, C

    G. Sharma, C. Moore, S. Saha, and S. Tewari, Physical Review B 96, 195119 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    K. G. Rana, F. K. Dejene, N. Kumar, C. R. Rajamathi, K. Sklarek, C. Felser, and S. S. Parkin, Nano letters 18, 6591 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Di Sante, P

    D. Di Sante, P. K. Das, C. Bigi, Z. Erg¨ onenc, N. G¨ urtler, J. A. Krieger, T. Schmitt, M. N. Ali, G. Rossi, R. Thomale, et al., Physical review letters 119, 026403 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    Guguchia, F

    Z. Guguchia, F. von Rohr, Z. Shermadini, A. T. Lee, S. Banerjee, A. Wieteska, C. Marianetti, B. Frandsen, H. Luetkens, Z. Gong, et al., Nature communications 8, 1082 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    Y. G. Naidyuk, D. Bashlakov, O. Kvitnitskaya, S. Aswartham, I. Morozov, I. Chernyavskii, G. Shipunov, G. Fuchs, S. Drechsler, R. H¨ uhne,et al., 2D Materials 6, 045012 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Sykora, J

    S. Sykora, J. Schoop, L. Graf, G. Shipunov, I. V. Morozov, S. Aswartham, B. B¨ uchner, C. Hess, R. Giraud, and J. Dufouleur, Physical Review Research 2, 033041 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Pawlik, S

    A.-S. Pawlik, S. Aswartham, I. Morozov, M. Knupfer, B. B¨ uchner, D. Efremov, and A. Koitzsch, Physical Review Materials 2, 104004 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    Supplementary material,

    M. Behnami et al., “Supplementary material,” (2024), details on experimental setup, addi- tional data, and analysis. Available at [URL or DOI if applicable]

    2024

  48. [56]

    S. Paul, S. Talukdar, R. S. Singh, and S. Saha, physica status solidi (RRL)–Rapid Research Letters

  49. [57]

    Cheng, L

    E. Cheng, L. Yan, X. Shi, R. Lou, A. Fedorov, M. Behnami, J. Yuan, P. Yang, B. Wang, J.-G. Cheng, et al., Nature Communications 15, 1467 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Ceccardi, A

    M. Ceccardi, A. Zeugner, L. Folkers, C. Hess, B. B¨ uchner, D. Marr´ e, A. Isaeva, and F. Caglieris, npj Quantum Materials 8, 76 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    L. Ding, J. Koo, L. Xu, X. Li, X. Lu, L. Zhao, Q. Wang, Q. Yin, H. Lei, B. Yan, et al., Physical Review X 9, 041061 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    Zeugner, L

    A. Zeugner, L. Folkers, C. Hess, B. B¨ uchner, A. Isaeva, D. Marr´ e, F. Caglieris, and M. Cec- cardi, (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    H. Yang, W. You, J. Wang, J. Huang, C. Xi, X. Xu, C. Cao, M. Tian, Z.-A. Xu, J. Dai, et al., Physical Review Materials 4, 024202 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Roychowdhury, M

    S. Roychowdhury, M. Yao, K. Samanta, S. Bae, D. Chen, S. Ju, A. Raghavan, N. Kumar, P. Constantinou, S. N. Guin, et al., Advanced Science 10, 2207121 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    Caglieris, C

    F. Caglieris, C. Wuttke, S. Sykora, V. S¨ uss, C. Shekhar, C. Felser, B. B¨ uchner, and C. Hess, Physical Review B 98, 201107 (2018). 19

    2018

  56. [64]

    Liang, J

    T. Liang, J. Lin, Q. Gibson, T. Gao, M. Hirschberger, M. Liu, R. J. Cava, and N. P. Ong, Physical review letters 118, 136601 (2017)

    2017

  57. [65]

    Y. Yang, Q. Tao, Y. Fang, G. Tang, C. Yao, X. Yan, C. Jiang, X. Xu, F. Huang, W. Ding, et al., Nature Physics , 1 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    Y. Pu, D. Chiba, F. Matsukura, H. Ohno, and J. Shi, Physical review letters 101, 117208 (2008)

    2008

  59. [67]

    Behnia, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 21, 113101 (2009)

    K. Behnia, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 21, 113101 (2009)

    2009

  60. [68]

    Behnia and H

    K. Behnia and H. Aubin, Reports on Progress in Physics 79, 046502 (2016)

    2016

  61. [69]

    Jiang, F

    J. Jiang, F. Tang, X. Pan, H. Liu, X. Niu, Y. Wang, D. Xu, H. Yang, B. Xie, F. Song, et al., Physical review letters 115, 166601 (2015)

    2015

  62. [70]

    Y. Pan, C. Le, B. He, S. J. Watzman, M. Yao, J. Gooth, J. P. Heremans, Y. Sun, and C. Felser, Nature materials 21, 203 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    Reichlov´ a, D

    H. Reichlov´ a, D. Kriegner, V. Hol` y, K. Olejn ´ ık, V. Nov´ ak, M. Yamada, K. Miura, S. Ogawa, H. Takahashi, T. Jungwirth, et al., Physical Review B 92, 165424 (2015). 20

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.