Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Element-Specific Visualization of Layer-Parity and Twist-Dependent Magnetism in CrSBr

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In CrSBr, rotating one monolayer 90° relative to another changes the magnetic easy axis itself, turning the twisted interface into a new magnetic ground state rather than a simple superposition of the two layers.

desk verdict The layer-parity XMCD-PEEM results are a genuine advance; the 90°-twist easy-axis reorientation is a plausible but unsupported inference that needs a direct out-of-plane probe. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26003 v1 pith:SK3S6PYM submitted 2026-07-28 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Aalok Tiwari , Shubhada Patil , Ravi Kumar Bandapelli , Alevtina Smekhova , Abhishek Kumar , Wenhao Liu , I-Hsuan Kao , Zhenhong Cui
show 11 more authors
Raghvendra Posti Brandon Tran Zixin Zhai Priti Yadav Sandy Adhitia Ekahana Alexander X. Gray Bing Lv Vivekanand Shukla Florian Kronast Simranjeet Singh Jyoti Katoch
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords CrSBrvanderWaalsantiferromagnetlayerparitytwistedbilayerXMCD-PEEMmagneticanisotropymoirémagnetismNéelvector
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 aims to establish that the magnetic order of atomically thin CrSBr is layer-parity-controlled—odd layer counts carry a net moment along the crystallographic b-axis while even counts are compensated A-type antiferromagnets—and that a 90° twisted bilayer does not simply superpose two in-plane ferromagnetic orders. In the twisted region, X-ray magnetic circular dichroism is absent at every azimuthal angle, the linear dichroism does not rotate with the sample, and density-functional calculations put the easy axis along the out-of-plane c-axis. The authors interpret these observations as a structural reconstruction at the twisted interface that reshapes orbital hybridization and spin-orbit anisotropy pathways. The result matters because it shows, with element-specific nanoscale imaging, that twist angle can qualitatively reorient magnetism in a van der Waals antiferromagnet.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the combination of layer-resolved XMCD/XMLD-PEEM with azimuthal sample rotation. XMCD measures the projection of Cr magnetization onto the X-ray propagation direction, so for a given azimuth one monolayer's in-plane moment is visible while the orthogonal layer is silent; the persistent absence of XMCD in the twisted region therefore means no in-plane moment is available at any projection. XLD tracks both crystal-field orbital anisotropy and magnetic linear dichroism, and its rotation invariance is used to exclude an in-plane Néel vector. The accompanying density-functional calculations of magnetic anisotropy energy on a twisted supercell that relaxes toward a nearly

What would settle it

Measure the same 90° twisted CrSBr bilayer with an X-ray geometry sensitive to out-of-plane moments—for example, normal-incidence XMCD at the Cr L3 edge—and check whether a perpendicular contrast appears that is absent at grazing incidence; equivalently, measure XLD as a function of azimuth on an unencapsulated twisted sample to disentangle XNLD from XMLD, since the c-axis conclusion requires the magnetic part to dominate the azimuthal invariance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using element-specific X-ray magnetic circular and linear dichroism imaged with photoemission electron microscopy, the authors resolve the Cr spin structure of CrSBr from monolayer to tetralayer and into a 90° twisted bilayer. In untwisted films, the net magnetization is set by surface termination: odd layer counts give a net moment along the crystallographic b-axis, even counts are nearly compensated, consistent with A-type antiferromagnetic interlayer coupling. In the orthogonally twisted bilayer, XMCD contrast is absent at all azimuthal angles, which rules out preserved in-plane easy axes or a simple superposition of orthogonal moments in the twisted region. Azimuth-invariant XLD is inter

Load-bearing premise

The central claim that the twisted bilayer's easy axis points out of plane rests on the assumption that the azimuth-invariant XLD is dominated by magnetic XMLD rather than crystal-field XNLD, and that the vanishing XMCD does not arise from multi-domain or compensated in-plane order; the authors explicitly leave open a non-collinear canted configuration at higher fields.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Layer parity is a directly imaged property of CrSBr: monolayer and other odd layer stacks have switchable net magnetization, while even stacks remain compensated up to applied fields of at least ±100 mT.
  • Graphene encapsulation measurably enhances the Cr XMCD signal by suppressing surface degradation, providing a practical protocol for element-specific studies of other air-sensitive van der Waals magnets.
  • The 90° twisted interface is magnetically distinct from its constituent monolayers and does not respond to in-plane fields that switch the top layer, indicating that twist angle can be used to engineer magnetic anisotropy in CrSBr heterostructures.
  • The theoretical prediction of an out-of-plane easy axis in the twisted region gives a concrete, falsifiable target for complementary probes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • As an extension, a decisive test would be a measurement with out-of-plane magnetic sensitivity—for example, normal-incidence XMCD or field-angle-resolved XMLD—because the paper's c-axis conclusion currently rests on the absence of in-plane contrast, which is consistent with but does not uniquely prove out-of-plane alignment.
  • The authors' own caveat about non-collinear canted configurations at higher fields suggests that field-dependent studies above 100 mT could map the anisotropy landscape of the twisted interface and reveal a field-driven reorientation.
  • If the c-axis easy axis is confirmed, the 90° twisted region could serve as a perpendicular Néel order parameter at a buried interface, making twisted CrSBr a plausible building block for antiferromagnetic spintronic devices.
  • The layer-parity imaging result is likely generalizable to other A-type van der Waals antiferromagnets, where the depth-weighted PEEM signal could be used to identify the topmost layer's magnetization and count layers non-destructively.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an X-ray magnetic circular/linear dichroism (XMCD/XLD) photoemission electron microscopy (PEEM) study of exfoliated CrSBr from multilayer down to monolayer, and of a 90°-twisted bilayer. In untwisted samples, the authors observe layer-parity-dependent net magnetization (odd layers magnetic, even layers compensated), consistent with A-type antiferromagnetic order, and show that in-plane field pulses switch odd layers while even layers remain stable. For the 90°-twisted bilayer, they find suppressed XMCD contrast at all azimuthal angles and azimuth-invariant XLD peak ordering, and interpret this as evidence that the easy axis of the twisted region is no longer in-plane but aligns along the out-of-plane c-axis, corroborated by DFT. The central claim is therefore that orthogonal twisting fundamentally changes the magnetic ground state of CrSBr.

Significance. If the twist-induced c-axis easy-axis claim is correct, the work is significant for moiré magnetism and for designing CrSBr-based spintronics. The strengths of the paper are the element-specific, layer-resolved XMCD/XLD-PEEM data down to the monolayer, the clear layer-parity demonstration, the field-switching behavior, and the fact that the DFT prediction is not fit to the XMCD maps and independently agrees with Ref. [35]. The untwisted results appear self-consistent and are likely a useful contribution. However, the central twist claim currently rests on absence-of-signal and non-decomposed XLD arguments, with no direct out-of-plane magnetic probe and an internal DFT parameter inconsistency; as presented, the evidence does not yet establish the c-axis easy axis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Magnetic Ground State in 90° Twisted Bilayer CrSBr; Methods] The central conclusion is supported only by the absence of XMCD in the twisted region at φ = 0°, 45°, 90° (Fig. 4b–d). With the grazing incidence θ = 16° stated in Methods, the projection of a c-axis moment onto the X-ray direction is sin16° ≈ 0.28, and the paper does not quantify the minimum detectable XMCD asymmetry or provide error bars on the 'negligible' contrast. Zero net XMCD is equally consistent with compensated in-plane AFM order, multi-domain in-plane order, or a canted/non-collinear state — the last is explicitly conceded ('we cannot exclude a non-collinear canted configuration'). A direct out-of-plane probe (e.g., normal-incidence geometry or field along c) or a quantified upper bound is required to support the c-axis easy-axis claim.
  2. [Twist Angle Dependent XLD-PEEM and Fig. S10 (main text reference)] The azimuthal-invariance XLD argument does not distinguish XNLD (crystal-field) from XMLD (magnetic). The only XNLD control above T_N (Fig. 1f,g) is for the untwisted multilayer, not for the twisted region. Without measuring XLD above T_N in the twisted region, or decomposing XLD(φ) into XNLD and XMLD contributions, the invariance cannot rule out an in-plane Néel vector. The conclusion 'invariant peak structure under rotation points to a structural reconstruction' is therefore an inference from a non-decomposed observable.
  3. [Computational Methods; Supplemental Table S2 and Fig. S3] There is an internal inconsistency in the DFT protocol. Methods state an effective Hubbard U_eff = 3 eV for Cr 3d electrons, while the supplement states that U = 0 was used consistently for bilayer and twisted systems because the QuantumATK MEA framework reproduces the VASP benchmark at U = 0. The manuscript must state clearly which calculations used which U. Moreover, the 90°-twist MAE in Table S2 is only ~0.002 meV/Cr (also quoted as 2.291 µeV/Cr), which is close to the 10^-7 eV total-energy convergence criterion quoted in Methods; the sign of such a tiny MAE is numerically fragile and the c-axis prediction needs convergence tests with respect to k-points, strain, and U.
  4. [Magnetic Ground State in 90° Twisted Bilayer CrSBr] The narrative of a structural reconstruction in the twisted region is introduced to explain the XLD invariance, but no microscopic structural characterization (e.g., STM or TEM) is presented. The 4×3×1 commensurate supercell is a modelling assumption for a nominally incommensurate 90° twist. If the structural reconstruction is load-bearing for the claim that the easy axis changes, it needs independent support or the argument should be decoupled from it.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure references] The main text refers to 'Fig. S10' for the twist-angle-dependent XLD maps, but the supplement labels this figure as Fig. S9. Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Author contributions] The author contributions mention 'A.L.N.K' as growing crystals, but this individual does not appear in the author list. Presumably A. L. N. Kondusamy from Ref. [23] is meant; clarify or correct.
  3. [Throughout] Typos and formatting: 'tertalayer' in the Supplement should be 'tetralayer'; 'Crd-orbital' in the main text should be 'Cr d-orbital'; use consistent accents for 'Néel'.
  4. [Methods - PEEM] The phrase 'start voltage close to 0 to capture the secondary electrons cascade' is vague; please specify the electron kinetic-energy acceptance window or detector settings used for imaging.
  5. [Fig. 4e,f] For the statement that the bottom layer and twisted region 'remain unaffected' by ±100 mT, provide a quantitative measure of contrast change (e.g., mean and standard deviation of asymmetry in those regions) rather than visual inspection alone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the c-axis conclusion is experimentally underdetermined but has independent DFT support and is not fitted to the XMCD/XLD maps.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. XMCD and XLD asymmetries are independently defined from polarization-dependent X-ray absorption images, and the layer-parity result follows from the stated depth-weighted model S ∝ Σ_i M_i exp(−z_i/λ) together with AFM thickness measurements; no parameter is fitted to the conclusion. For the 90° twisted region, the experimental evidence is an absence-of-signal argument: XMCD is suppressed at φ = 0°, 45°, and 90°, and the relative XLD peak ordering is azimuth-invariant. The paper interprets this using the physical premise that an in-plane Néel vector would produce azimuth-dependent projection in XLD. That inference is underdetermined—the paper does not quantitatively separate XMLD from XNLD in the twisted region, the grazing-incidence projection of a c-axis moment is only sin16° ≈ 0.28, and the paper itself concedes 'we cannot exclude a non-collinear canted configuration at higher fields.' But underdetermination is an evidence weakness, not a circular reduction: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the c-axis claim is not obtained from the XMCD maps. Instead, the c-axis easy axis comes from MAE calculations (Table S2: MAE = 0.002 meV/Cr, easy axis c), using a U = 0/MEA protocol benchmarked against VASP for the monolayer, and is stated to agree with an external prior study (Ref. [35]) whose authors are not the present authors. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from self-citations. The only overlapping-author citations are for fabrication and beamline methods ([46], [47], [56]), which are not load-bearing for the scientific claims. The SI's statement that U = 0 was used consistently for twisted structures versus the Methods' U_eff = 3 eV is an internal inconsistency, and the near-zero MAE makes the computational corroboration fragile, but neither constitutes definitional circularity. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced. The paper's central claim rests on a chain of modeling and inference assumptions: layer-parity interpretation is well grounded in prior literature, but the twist easy-axis conclusion depends on a strained commensurate supercell, the assumption that XLD invariance is magnetic rather than crystal-field dominated, and a near-zero DFT MAE.

free parameters (4)
  • Hubbard U for twisted-region magnetism = 0 eV (QuantumATK); main text states U=4 eV, J=1 eV
    Choice of Coulomb parameter changes the exchange hierarchy (Fig. S3) and hence the computed MAE; U=0 was selected to match a VASP benchmark hierarchy, not independently validated for the 90° interface.
  • Effective PEEM escape depth λ = assumed 2–3 nm; no measured value
    Depth attenuation formula S∝Σ M_i exp(−z_i/λ) governs how even-layer compensation and twisted-region cancellation are interpreted; no independent calibration is given.
  • Supercell strain/registry for 4×3×1 twisted cell = minimal strain; no numeric value
    Imposing commensurate periodicity on a 90° twist forces relaxation to a near-square lattice; the structural reconstruction and c-axis MAE may be partly an artifact of this strain.
  • MAE energy tolerance = ~0.002 meV/Cr for 90° twist
    The easy-axis sign conclusion rests on energy differences below typical DFT numerical noise; a nearly vanishing MAE makes the direction prediction fragile.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Bulk CrSBr is A-type AFM with T_N=132 K and monolayer easy axis along the b-axis
    Central to the layer-parity interpretation; taken from prior literature [21–28], not re-measured here.
  • domain assumption XMCD signal is proportional to m·k and is depth-attenuated as exp(−z/λ)
    Used to convert image contrast into magnetization direction and to estimate even-layer compensation; stated in Methods but not independently calibrated.
  • ad hoc to paper Azimuthal invariance of XLD peak intensity implies no in-plane Néel-vector reorientation and therefore structural reconstruction
    This is the key inference connecting experiment to the c-axis claim. It assumes XLD is dominated by XMLD and that structural reconstruction is the only explanation; no quantitative XNLD/XMLD decomposition is given.
  • ad hoc to paper A strained 4×3×1 commensurate supercell represents the real incommensurate 90° twist interface
    The DFT corroboration depends on this modeling choice; a true 90° twist of an orthorhombic lattice is incommensurate, so the imposed periodicity and relaxation to a square lattice may not faithfully represent the physical interface.
  • domain assumption DFT with PBE+U, DFT-D3, and LKAG exchange analysis reliably resolves near-zero MAE differences
    Standard tools, but the central c-axis conclusion depends on energy differences (~0.002 meV/Cr) where DFT accuracy is questionable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Element-Specific Visualization of Layer-Parity and Twist-Dependent Magnetism in CrSBr." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SK3S6PYM

@misc{pith2026260726003,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Element-Specific Visualization of Layer-Parity and Twist-Dependent Magnetism in CrSBr},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SK3S6PYM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26003}
}
abstract

Van der Waals (vdW) based antiferromagnets (AFMs) are an ideal platform for probing and understanding thickness- and twist-angle-dependent emergent spin phenomena. However, element-specific nanoscale characterization of the spin structure in atomically thin vdW-based AFMs systems and layer-parity effects remain elusive, making them crucial for both fundamental insight into low-dimensional magnetism and the rational design of spintronic devices based on these materials. Here, we utilize X-ray magnetic circular and linear dichroisms paired with photoemission electron microscopy to resolve the magnetic order in atomically thin CrSBr. Our comprehensive measurements reveal CrSBr magnetic structure at the nanoscale and its dependence on the layer number, surface encapsulation, temperature, and applied field. Moreover, in the orthogonally twisted bilayer configuration, obtained by twisting two CrSBr ferromagnetic monolayers by 90$^\circ$, the magnetic easy axis fundamentally differs from the individual monolayers, unlocking a new pathway for moir\'e magnetism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26003 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references

  1. [35]

    Zhang, Z

    F. Zhang, Z. Xu, D. Qi, W. Wang, X. Li, Y. Su, W. Shi, and Z. Guan, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C129, 16897 (2025)

    2025

  2. [1]

    K. S. Burch, D. Mandrus, and J.-G. Park, Nature563, 47 (2018)

    2018

  3. [2]

    K. F. Mak, J. Shan, and D. C. Ralph, Nature Reviews Physics1, 646 (2019)

    2019

  4. [3]

    Gibertini, M

    M. Gibertini, M. Koperski, A. F. Morpurgo, and K. S. Novoselov, Nature Nanotechnology14, 408 (2019)

    2019

  5. [4]

    S. Yang, T. Zhang, and C. Jiang, Advanced Science8, 2002488 (2021)

    2021

  6. [5]

    F. Zhou, K. Hwangbo, Q. Zhang, C. Wang, L. Shen, J. Zhang, Q. Jiang, A. Zong, Y. Su, M. Zajac,et al., Nature communications13, 6598 (2022)

    2022

  7. [6]

    H. Xu, N. Jiang, H. Chen, Y. Chen, T. Wu, Y. Cui, Y. Wu, Z. Sheng, Z. Sun, J. Xu,et al., Physical Review B111, 024410 (2025)

    2025

  8. [7]

    Soumyanarayanan, N

    A. Soumyanarayanan, N. Reyren, A. Fert, and C. Panagopoulos, Nature539, 509 (2016)

    2016

Show all 74 references
  1. [8]

    C. Gong, L. Li, Z. Li, H. Ji, A. Stern, Y. Xia, T. Cao, W. Bao, C. Wang, Y. Wang,et al., Nature546, 265 (2017)

    2017

  2. [9]

    Song, Q.-C

    T. Song, Q.-C. Sun, E. Anderson, C. Wang, J. Qian, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. A. McGuire, R. St¨ ohr, D. Xiao,et al., Science374, 1140 (2021)

    2021

  3. [10]

    B. Yang, Y. Li, H. Xiang, H. Lin, and B. Huang, Nature Computational Science3, 314 (2023)

    2023

  4. [11]

    Y. Xu, A. Ray, Y.-T. Shao, S. Jiang, K. Lee, D. We- ber, J. E. Goldberger, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. A. Muller,et al., Nature Nanotechnology17, 143 (2022)

    2022

  5. [12]

    M. Jang, S. Lee, F. Cantos-Prieto, I. Koˇ si´ c, Y. Li, A. R. McCray, M.-H. Jung, J.-Y. Yoon, L. Boddapati, F. L. Deepak,et al., Nature Communications15, 5925 (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

    Q. Tong, F. Liu, J. Xiao, and W. Yao, Nano Letters18, 7194 (2018)

    2018

  7. [14]

    Hejazi, Z.-X

    K. Hejazi, Z.-X. Luo, and L. Balents, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117, 10721 (2020)

    2020

  8. [15]

    C. Wang, Y. Gao, H. Lv, X. Xu, and D. Xiao, Physical Review Letters125, 247201 (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    Akram and O

    M. Akram and O. Erten, Physical Review B103, L140406 (2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    Cheng, M

    G. Cheng, M. M. Rahman, A. L. Allcca, A. Rustagi, X. Liu, L. Liu, L. Fu, Y. Zhu, Z. Mao, K. Watanabe, et al., Nature Electronics6, 434 (2023)

    2023

  11. [18]

    S. Li, Z. Sun, N. J. McLaughlin, A. Sharmin, N. Agarwal, M. Huang, S. H. Sung, H. Lu, S. Yan, H. Lei,et al., Nature Communications15, 5712 (2024)

    2024

  12. [19]

    P. C. Adak, F. Dirnberger, S. Acharya, A. Kamra, X. Xu, and V. M. Menon, Nature Materials 10.1038/s41563-026- 02636-0 (2026)

    2026 doi

  13. [20]

    Kim, K.-X

    H. Kim, K.-X. Zhang, Y.-H. Li, G. Park, R. Cheng, and J.-G. Park, Nature Communications (2026)

    2026

  14. [21]

    E. J. Telford, A. H. Dismukes, K. Lee, M. Cheng, A. Wi- eteska, A. K. Bartholomew, Y.-S. Chen, X. Xu, A. N. Pa- supathy, X. Zhu,et al., Advanced Materials32, 2003240 (2020)

    2020

  15. [22]

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

    2021

  16. [23]

    W. Liu, X. Guo, J. Schwartz, H. Xie, N. U. Dhale, S. H. Sung, A. L. N. Kondusamy, X. Wang, H. Zhao, D. Berman,et al., ACS Nano16, 15917 (2022)

    2022

  17. [24]

    N. P. Wilson, K. Lee, J. Cenker, K. Xie, A. H. Dismukes, E. J. Telford, J. Fonseca, S. Sivakumar, C. Dean, T. Cao, et al., Nature Materials20, 1657 (2021). 10

    2021

  18. [25]

    Klein, B

    J. Klein, B. Pingault, M. Florian, M.-C. Heißenb¨ uttel, A. Steinhoff, Z. Song, K. Torres, F. Dirnberger, J. B. Curtis, M. Weile,et al., ACS Nano17, 5316 (2023)

    2023

  19. [26]

    G¨ oser, W

    O. G¨ oser, W. Paul, and H. Kahle, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials92, 129 (1990)

    1990

  20. [27]

    N. J. Brennan, C. A. Noble, J. Tang, M. E. Ziebel, and Y. J. Bae, ACS Physical Chemistry Au4, 322 (2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    Y. Wang, N. Luo, J. Zeng, L.-M. Tang, and K.-Q. Chen, Physical Review B108, 054401 (2023)

    2023

  22. [29]

    Y. J. Bae, J. Wang, A. Scheie, J. Xu, D. G. Chica, G. M. Diederich, J. Cenker, M. E. Ziebel, Y. Bai, H. Ren,et al., Nature609, 282 (2022)

    2022

  23. [30]

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

    2022

  24. [31]

    Datta, P

    B. Datta, P. C. Adak, S. Yu, A. Valiyaparambil Dharma- palan, S. J. Hall, A. Vakulenko, F. Komissarenko, E. Kurganov, J. Quan, W. Wang,et al., Nature Materials , 1 (2025)

    2025

  25. [32]

    Liebich, M

    M. Liebich, M. Florian, N. Nilforoushan, F. Moosham- mer, A. D. Koulouklidis, L. Wittmann, K. Mosina, Z. Sofer, F. Dirnberger, M. Kira,et al., Nature Mate- rials , 1 (2025)

    2025

  26. [33]

    Y. Chen, K. Samanta, N. A. Shahed, H. Zhang, C. Fang, A. Ernst, E. Y. Tsymbal, and S. S. Parkin, Nature632, 1045 (2024)

    2024

  27. [34]

    Boix-Constant, S

    C. Boix-Constant, S. Jenkins, R. Rama-Eiroa, E. J. San- tos, S. Ma˜ nas-Valero, and E. Coronado, Nature Materials 23, 212 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Thiel, Z

    L. Thiel, Z. Wang, M. A. Tschudin, D. Rohner, I. Guti´ errez-Lezama, N. Ubrig, M. Gibertini, E. Gian- nini, A. F. Morpurgo, and P. Maletinsky, Science364, 973 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    D. J. Rizzo, A. S. McLeod, C. Carnahan, E. J. Telford, A. H. Dismukes, R. A. Wiscons, Y. Dong, C. Nuckolls, C. R. Dean, A. N. Pasupathy,et al., Advanced Materials 34, 2201000 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    T. S. Ghiasi, M. Borst, S. Kurdi, B. G. Simon, I. Bertelli, C. Boix-Constant, S. Ma˜ nas-Valero, H. S. van der Zant, and T. van der Sar, npj 2D Materials and Applications 7, 62 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Y. Zur, A. Noah, C. Boix-Constant, S. Ma˜ nas-Valero, N. Fridman, R. Rama-Eiroa, M. E. Huber, E. J. Santos, E. Coronado, and Y. Anahory, Advanced Materials35, 2307195 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    M. A. Tschudin, D. A. Broadway, P. Siegwolf, C. Schrader, E. J. Telford, B. Gross, J. Cox, A. E. Dubois, D. G. Chica, R. Rama-Eiroa,et al., Nature Com- munications15, 6005 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Br¨ uche, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik86, 448 (1933)

    E. Br¨ uche, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik86, 448 (1933)

    1933

  34. [42]

    St¨ ohr, H

    J. St¨ ohr, H. Padmore, S. Anders, T. Stammler, and M. Scheinfein, Surface review and letters5, 1297 (1998)

    1998

  35. [43]

    St¨ ohr and H

    J. St¨ ohr and H. C. Siegmann,Magnetism: from funda- mentals to nanoscale dynamics(Springer, 2006)

    2006

  36. [44]

    C. Vaz, G. van der Laan, S. Cavill, H. D¨ urr, A. Fraile Rodr ´ ıguez, F. Kronast, W. Kuch, P. Sainctavit, G. Sch¨ utz, H. Wende,et al., Nature Reviews Methods Primers5, 27 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    Zomer, M

    P. Zomer, M. Guimar˜ aes, J. Brant, N. Tombros, and B. Van Wees, Applied Physics Letters105(2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    I.-H. Kao, R. Muzzio, H. Zhang, M. Zhu, J. Gobbo, S. Yuan, D. Weber, R. Rao, J. Li, J. H. Edgar,et al., Nature Materials21, 1029 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    S. A. Ekahana, A. Tiwari, S. Sasmal, Z. Cai, R. K. Ban- dapelli, I. Kao, J. Tang, C. Min, T. Qian, K. Watanabe, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.11504 (2026)

    2026

  40. [48]

    F. Pei, J. Yu, J. Zhou, S. Wang, D. Liu, Y. Yuan, L. Xi, F. Jin, X. Kan, C. Wang,et al., Advanced Functional Materials34, 2309335 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Por´ ee, A

    V. Por´ ee, A. Zobelli, A. Pawbake, J. Regner, Z. Sofer, C. Faugeras, and A. Nicolaou, Physical Review B112, 125103 (2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    C. Ye, C. Wang, Q. Wu, S. Liu, J. Zhou, G. Wang, A. Soll, Z. Sofer, M. Yue, X. Liu,et al., ACS Nano16, 11876 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Z. Liu, Y. Sun, C. Zhu, C. Hong, Y. Gao, Z. Sun, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Wu, Z. Chen,et al., Phys- ical Review B111, L140417 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    Krelle, R

    L. Krelle, R. Tan, D. Markina, P. Mondal, K. Mosina, K. Hagmann, R. von Klitzing, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Z. Sofer,et al., ACS nano19, 33156 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    Z. Sun, C. Hong, Y. Chen, Z. Sheng, S. Wu, Z. Wang, B. Liang, W.-T. Liu, Z. Yuan, Y. Wu,et al., Nature Materials24, 226 (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    Q. Li, X. Wan, S. Li, A. Alfrey, W. Liu, Z. Zhai, W. Alpers, Y. Yang, I. Wladyszewska, C. W. Beach, et al., Physical Review Letters135, 156901 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    Neˇ cas and P

    D. Neˇ cas and P. Klapetek, Central European Journal of Physics10, 181 (2012)

    2012

  48. [56]

    Kronast and S

    F. Kronast and S. V. Molina, Journal of large-scale re- search facilities JLSRF2, A90 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    Hohenberg and W

    P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Physical review136, B864 (1964)

    1964

  50. [58]

    Kohn and L

    W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Physical review140, A1133 (1965)

    1965

  51. [59]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Physical review B54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  52. [60]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Physical Re- view Letters77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  53. [61]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Physical Re- view Letters80, 891 (1998)

    1998

  54. [62]

    Hammer, L

    B. Hammer, L. B. Hansen, and J. K. Nørskov, Physical Review B59, 7413 (1999)

    1999

  55. [63]

    Grimme, S

    S. Grimme, S. Ehrlich, and L. Goerigk, Journal of Com- putational Chemistry32, 1456 (2011)

    2011

  56. [64]

    Grimme, J

    S. Grimme, J. Antony, S. Ehrlich, and H. Krieg, The Journal of Chemical Physics132(2010)

    2010

  57. [65]

    Pe, Physical Review B50, 17953 (1994)

    B. Pe, Physical Review B50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  58. [66]

    V. I. Anisimov, J. Zaanen, and O. K. Andersen, Physical Review B44, 943 (1991)

    1991

  59. [67]

    Smidstrup, T

    S. Smidstrup, T. Markussen, P. Vancraeyveld, J. Wellen- dorff, J. Schneider, T. Gunst, B. Verstichel, D. Stradi, P. A. Khomyakov, U. G. Vej-Hansen,et al., Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter32, 015901 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    A. I. Liechtenstein, M. Katsnelson, V. Antropov, and V. Gubanov, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Ma- terials67, 65 (1987)

    1987

  61. [69]

    Y. Guo, Y. Zhang, S. Yuan, B. Wang, and J. Wang, Nanoscale10, 18036 (2018)

    2018

  62. [70]

    Scheie, M

    A. Scheie, M. Ziebel, D. G. Chica, Y. J. Bae, X. Wang, A. I. Kolesnikov, X. Zhu, and X. Roy, Advanced Science 9, 2202467 (2022). 11

    2022

  63. [71]

    B lo´ nski and J

    P. B lo´ nski and J. Hafner, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter21, 426001 (2009)

    2009

  64. [72]

    Blanco-Rey, J

    M. Blanco-Rey, J. I. Cerd´ a, and A. Arnau, New Journal of Physics21, 073054 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    N. Liu, C. Wang, Y. Zhang, F. Pang, Z. Cheng, Y. Zhang, and W. Ji, Physical Review B109, 214422 (2024). S1 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL FOR: ELEMENT-SPECIFIC VISUALIZA TION OF LA YER-P ARITY AND TWIST-DEPENDENT MAGNETISM IN CRSBR OPTICAL AND A TOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY OF HETEROSTRUCT...

    2024

  66. [74]

    Such dif- ferences are not unexpected

    retain the hierarchyJ 2 > J1 for the reference monolayer and also supported by the literature [69]. Such dif- ferences are not unexpected. Although both QuantumATK and V ASP employ the rotationally invariant DFT+U S3 FIG. S4. (a) Side and (b, c) top views of the monolayer CrSB...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.