Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Intertwined magnetic phase driven exchange bias and its impact on the anomalous Hall effect in MnBi$_4$Te$_7$

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that native Mn-on-Bi antisite defects in MnBi4Te7 act as built-in FM/AFM interfaces that shift both magnetization and anomalous Hall hysteresis loops.

desk verdict A solid observational report of exchange bias and training in bulk MnBi4Te7, but the defect-causality claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15540 v1 pith:USQNP45T submitted 2025-06-18 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Nazma Firdosh , Shreyashi Sinha , Indraneel Sinha , Mainpal Singh , Satyabrata Patnaik , Sujit Manna This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords MnBi4Te7exchangebiasanomalousHalleffectMn-BiantisitedefectstrainingFM-AFMphasecoexistencemagnetictopologicalinsulatorscanningtunnelingmicroscopy
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

MnBi4Te7 is a layered magnetic topological insulator in which ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic blocks naturally alternate. The paper argues that native Mn-on-Bi antisite defects, imaged by STM at 5-7% surface coverage, act as built-in pinning centers that couple these blocks, producing a real exchange-bias shift in the magnetization hysteresis and in the anomalous Hall effect. If correct, this makes the intrinsic disorder of the crystal a tunable magnetic interface: warming from 2 K to 6 K converts an asymmetric loop shift into a symmetric one, and the frozen-spin contribution to training reverses sign, signaling a reconfiguration of interfacial spins. The result matters because it connects atomic-scale defects to macroscopic Hall transport in the bulk material, pointing toward stabilizing quantum anomalous Hall behavior by interface engineering without artificial heterostructures.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a built-in ferromagnet/antiferromagnet interface formed by intrinsic Mn-on-Bi antisite defects between the septuple and quintuple layers. The quantitative handles are the exchange-bias field $H_{EB} = (H_{C+} + H_{C-})/2$, the training-effect decomposition $H_{EB,n} = H_{EB,\infty} + A_f e^{-n/p_f} + A_r e^{-n/p_r}$ separating frozen and rotatable interfacial spins, and the field-cooling protocol that sets the interface. This machinery lets the authors connect surface imaging (defect density) to bulk magnetization (loop shift and training) and to transport (shifted anomalous Hall loop, phase-fraction resistivity).

What would settle it

Count Mn-on-Bi antisites on a cross-section through the same crystal (for example by scanning transmission electron microscopy) and compare with the 5-7% surface STM value; if the bulk density is much lower, surface defects cannot anchor the bulk interface. In addition, compare ZFC and FC hysteresis loops at 2 K and 6 K: if a zero-field-cooled loop already shows the same shifted anomalous Hall and magnetization hysteresis, or if varying the cooling field does not change $H_{EB}$ as a pinned AFM interface would require, the defect-pinning mechanism fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that MnBi4Te7 single crystals exhibit intrinsic, defect-mediated exchange bias. STM shows Mn-on-Bi antisite defects at roughly 5-7% coverage on septuple-layer terraces; the authors identify these as the source of a strong interlayer exchange coupling that creates coexisting FM/AFM interfaces. After field cooling, the hysteresis loop shifts by an exchange-bias field $H_{EB} = (H_{C+} + H_{C-})/2$, and the same shift appears as a horizontal displacement of the anomalous Hall hysteresis, showing that the interface imprints itself on electronic transport. Between 2 K and 6 K the loop evolves from asymmetric to symmetric, and a two-component training-effect analysis gives relaxation amplitudes that flip from about -264 Oe to +306 Oe, which the authors interpret as frozen interfacial spins giving way to rotatable spins. Finally, a phase-fraction resistivity model separates electron-electron, spin-fluctuation, and electron-phonon scattering in the FM, AFM, and PM regimes, tying the same phase coexistence to transport.

Load-bearing premise

The argument needs the 5-7% Mn-on-Bi defect density observed on the cleaved surface to represent the bulk crystal, and those defects to be the pinning centers that set up the FM/AFM interface; no defect-free control crystal or alternate cooling protocol rules out phase separation, surface termination, or minor-loop artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hall-effect measurements on MnBi4Te7 at low temperature must treat the anomalous Hall hysteresis as shifted by magnetic history; the exchange-bias displacement is part of the electronic response, not noise.
  • Temperature becomes a control knob: cycling through 2 K and 6 K switches the interfacial spin configuration between frozen-dominated and rotatable-dominated, changing both the loop shape and the training behavior.
  • Resistivity data can be decomposed into FM, AFM, and PM phase fractions, so transport measurements alone can track the phase coexistence that underlies the exchange bias.
  • If the defect interface is this effective in the bulk, interface engineering (adjusting defect density or stacking) could stabilize quantum anomalous Hall transport in MBT-family crystals without chemical doping.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test follows from crystal growth: samples grown to deliberately vary the Mn-on-Bi antisite density should show a monotonic change in $H_{EB}$ and in the anomalous Hall shift; if they do not, the defects are spectators rather than pinning centers.
  • The sign reversal in training relaxation amplitude between 2 K and 6 K may be a general fingerprint of competing frozen and rotatable spins in any van der Waals magnet with FM/AFM coexistence, so the same two-exponential analysis on other MBT-family members could reveal whether this is universal.
  • Because the exchange bias appears in the Hall signal, the magnetic state of the surface/bulk interface could be read out electronically; this hints at a device-relevant way to probe interfacial spin reconfiguration without magnetization measurements.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a combined STM, magnetization, AC susceptibility, longitudinal resistivity, and Hall effect study of MnBi4Te7 single crystals. It identifies Mn–Bi antisite defects on the septuple-layer surface with approximately 5–7% coverage, observes exchange-bias-like shifts in field-cooled magnetization loops at 2 K and 6 K with a training effect, and finds a corresponding shift in the anomalous Hall loops at 6 K. The authors attribute the exchange bias to the intrinsic Mn–Bi antisite defects and use a phase-fraction percolation model to describe the temperature- and field-dependent resistivity. The central causal claim is that the defects create a ferromagnetic/antiferromagnetic interface giving rise to exchange bias.

Significance. If the causal link between atomic-scale defects and exchange bias were established, this would be a valuable contribution to the MnBi2Te4(Bi2Te3)n family, connecting microscopic disorder to macroscopic transport and suggesting a route toward interface engineering without chemical doping. The paper includes useful data: STM images with defect identification, AC susceptibility showing phase coexistence, field-cooled M-H and Hall loops exhibiting exchange-bias-like shifts, and a resistivity model with multiple regimes. However, the key mechanistic claim is not demonstrated by the present evidence, and the training-effect fit suffers from parameter identifiability problems. The manuscript is potentially publishable after significant revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, §3.2.2, Fig. 1(g,h) and Fig. 3] The abstract's statement that "intrinsic Mn–Bi antisite defects induce strong interlayer exchange coupling, giving rise to a robust exchange bias" is not supported by the presented evidence. The STM measurements quantify defects only on the cleaved surface, and no bulk-sensitive probe (such as single-crystal diffuse scattering, EXAFS, neutron/PDF) or control crystal with a different defect density is provided to show that these defects are present in the interior and that they act as the pinning centers producing a ferromagnetic/antiferromagnetic interface. The observed field-cooled M-H and Hall shifts in §3.2.2 could equally arise from the intrinsic FM/AFM coexistence of the SL/QL superlattice, from surface termination effects, or from minor-loop/history artifacts. Please rephrase the causal claim to a correlation (e.g., "the EB is associated with coexisting FM/AFM regions, and surface antisite defects may contribute") or supply additional bulk/control measurements that directly test the proposed mechanism.
  2. [§3.2.2, Eq. (2) and Table I] The frozen/rotatable spin relaxation model reports nearly identical decay constants at each temperature (pf = 0.76 and pr = 0.76 at 2 K; pf = 0.425 and pr = 0.42 at 6 K). With such a near-degeneracy, the individual amplitudes Af and Ar cannot be reliably separated without reported uncertainties or a correlation matrix. The sign reversal of Af between −264 Oe (2 K) and +306 Oe (6 K), which is highlighted in the abstract and conclusion, is therefore not statistically supported. Please provide fit uncertainties, residuals, or a discussion of the parameter correlation to justify the physical interpretation of these amplitudes.
  3. [§3.3, Eq. (6) and Table II] The claim that the phase-fraction percolation model "captures the distinct scattering mechanisms" is not well supported because the fitting procedure is not described (e.g., number of free parameters, constraints, initial guesses, goodness-of-fit criteria, uncertainties), and several fitted parameters in Table II vary non-monotonically with field or take unphysical signs (notably ρ4.5 remains negative at all fields, and ρ2 drops by more than an order of magnitude between 0 T and 0.5 T). As presented, the model is not falsifiable and the parameter values cannot be assessed. The authors should provide a detailed fitting protocol, uncertainties, and a discussion of the physical constraints expected for these coefficients.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 1 and text] The figure caption labels panels (g) and (h) as large-scale topography and zoom-in, but the text refers to "Fig. 1(h)" for the zoom-in while also citing "Fig. 1(g)" for defect estimation; please clarify the panel assignments consistently.
  2. [§3.1, Fig. 1(i)] The text states that the density of states is suppressed "within the energy range from −214 meV to −375 meV"; this ordering is confusing because the lower bound is more negative than the upper bound. Please rewrite as "between −375 meV and −214 meV" or use absolute values.
  3. [§3.2.2, Fig. 3] The sentence "Coercive fields for the positive and negative branches of M-H loops are shown in Fig. 3(b) & 3(d) at 2 K and 6 K" references Fig. 3(d) for the coercive field plot, but Fig. 3(d) is an M-H loop; the correct reference should probably be Fig. 3(e).
  4. [Eq. (8) and surrounding text] In the text accompanying Eq. (8), the activation energy appears as "D/kmeVT" whereas the displayed equation uses "D/kBT"; please correct the typo and define the symbols consistently (kB is presumably the Boltzmann constant).
  5. [Table I] The fitted parameters in Table I lack units and uncertainties; the exchange-bias fields and amplitudes are presumably in Oersted, but this should be stated explicitly, and error bars should be reported for all fitted values.
  6. [§3.2.1] The manuscript uses "spin-freezing temperature," "blocking temperature," and "Tf" interchangeably; please use one consistent term and define its physical meaning in this context.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: STM defect imaging, magnetization, and transport are independent measurements; the self-citation for the defect-density calculation is minor and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central causal claim that Mn_Bi antisite defects produce exchange bias is inferred from two independent measurement streams: STM identifies and counts Mn_Bi defects on the surface (Fig. 1g,h), while M-H and Hall loops exhibit exchange-bias shifts (Fig. 3, Fig. 5d). Neither quantity is defined in terms of the other, so there is no self-definitional reduction. The training-effect analysis fits H_EB(n) to an empirical power law and to a frozen/rotatable two-exponential model (Eqs. 1-2, Table I); the fitted amplitudes Af and Ar and their sign change are descriptive parameters of the data, not independent predictions, so interpreting them physically is inference rather than circularity. Likewise, the phase-fraction resistivity model (Eqs. 3-6) is a fit to rho(T) whose FM/AFM/PM phase structure is independently motivated by magnetization and AC-susceptibility measurements; the model does not smuggle in the coexistence it claims to capture. The only self-citation is Ref. [37] (S. Sinha and S. Manna, coauthors) for the defect-density calculation; the present paper provides the STM topography and the calculation in its Supplementary, so this citation is not load-bearing. The more serious concern is an evidence gap, not circularity: without a bulk-sensitive defect measurement or a control crystal, the assertion that surface Mn_Bi defects are the pinning centers for exchange bias is underdetermined. Under the rules, an evidentiary gap belongs in correctness risk, not in the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard structural and magnetic prior results, on STM-based defect assignments that are not chemically verified, on exchange-bias models imported from heterostructure literature, and on a percolation resistivity model with many fitted parameters. No new physical entity is introduced. The main free parameters are the training-effect amplitudes and decay constants plus the resistivity coefficients, several of which are reported without uncertainties and some, notably x, y, dx, dy, not reported at all.

free parameters (9)
  • H_infinity_EB (asymptotic exchange bias field) = 10.17 Oe at 2 K; 15.50 Oe at 6 K (frozen/rotatable model)
    Obtained from fitting H_EB versus cycle number; used to conclude that EB is stronger at 6 K than at 2 K.
  • Af (frozen spins amplitude) = -264.26 at 2 K; 306.53 at 6 K
    The sign reversal between 2 K and 6 K is the main evidence for a field-induced change in interfacial coupling.
  • Ar (rotatable spins amplitude) = 292.85 at 2 K; 201.27 at 6 K
    Contribution from rotatable spins in the two-exponential training model of Eq. (2).
  • pf, pr (exponential decay constants) = pf = pr = 0.76 at 2 K; pf = 0.425, pr = 0.42 at 6 K
    Decay rates for frozen and rotatable spin contributions in the training effect fit.
  • H_infinity_EB and kH (empirical power-law) = H_infinity_EB = 8.05, kH = 5.45 at 2 K; H_infinity_EB = 13.38, kH = 2.77 at 6 K
    Fit parameters for Eq. (1), H_EB(n) = H_infinity_EB + kH/sqrt(n).
  • C and D/kB (AFM resistivity parameters) = C = 2.128 to 2.762 (10^-6 Ohm-cm); D/kB = 1892 to 1198 K across 0 to 1.5 T
    Fit to rho(T) in the AFM regime via Eq. (8); D is interpreted as an activation energy.
  • rho0, rho2, rho4.5 (FM resistivity coefficients) = rho0 ~ 0.001278 to 0.001375 Ohm-cm; rho2 and rho4.5 vary with field as in Table II
    Fit to the low-temperature ferromagnetic region via Eq. (7).
  • rho_PM0, rho1 (PM resistivity coefficients) = rho_PM0 ~ 0.001447 to 0.001475 Ohm-cm; rho1 ~ 2.87 to 3.44 (10^-6 Ohm-cm/K)
    Fit to the high-temperature paramagnetic region via Eq. (9).
  • Phase transition temperatures and widths x, y, dx, dy = not reported in main text
    Sigmoid volume fractions in Eq. (3) depend on these free parameters, but they are not listed in Table II or anywhere in the main text, so the resistivity fit cannot be independently reconstructed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MnBi4Te7 has P-3m1 structure with alternating MnBi2Te4 septuple and Bi2Te3 quintuple layers, with Mn spins having FM intralayer and AFM interlayer order and perpendicular anisotropy.
    Taken from prior literature (refs 9, 21, 36) and used to interpret M-H loops and the magnetic phase diagram; XRD here confirms lattice parameters only.
  • domain assumption Dark triangular STM depressions are Mn_Bi antisite defects and bright protrusions are Bi_Te defects.
    Assigned from topographic contrast and prior reports; no element-specific spectroscopy or density-functional verification is shown in this work.
  • domain assumption Exchange bias models for FM/AFM heterostructures (empirical power law and frozen/rotatable spin model) apply to bulk single-crystal magnetic phase coexistence.
    Equations (1) and (2) are taken from refs 31 and 39 and assumed valid for MnBi4Te7 without derivation or independent validation.
  • ad hoc to paper The total resistivity is a weighted sum of FM, AFM, and PM phase resistivities with sigmoidal volume fractions.
    The percolation model in Eqs. (3)-(6) is introduced to interpret rho(T); the phase fractions are not independently measured.
  • ad hoc to paper Surface Mn_Bi defect coverage of 5-7% is representative of bulk interlayer defect density and causes the exchange bias.
    No depth-resolved or control-sample evidence connects surface STM defects to the bulk FM/AFM interfaces inferred from magnetization and transport.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intertwined magnetic phase driven exchange bias and its impact on the anomalous Hall effect in MnBi$_4$Te$_7$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/USQNP45T

@misc{pith2026250615540,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intertwined magnetic phase driven exchange bias and its impact on the anomalous Hall effect in MnBi$_4$Te$_7$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/USQNP45T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15540}
}
abstract

We report on the interplay between atomic scale inhomogeneity and competing magnetic phases and its effect on the anomalous Hall effect in the layered antiferromagnet MnBi$_4$Te$_7$, a natural superlattice hosting coexisting ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic phases. Using a combination of scanning tunneling microscopy (STM), DC and AC magnetization, and magneto-transport measurements, we reveal that intrinsic Mn Bi antisite defects induce strong interlayer exchange coupling, giving rise to a robust exchange bias observed in both magnetic and Hall responses. The exchange bias undergoes a transition from asymmetric to symmetric behavior between 2 K and 6 K, indicating a temperature driven dynamical reconfiguration of interfacial spin structures. The training effect analysis revealed a stronger contribution of frozen spins at 2 K compared to 6 K, with relaxation amplitude shift from -264 Oe to 306 Oe. This sign reversal indicates a field-induced change in interfacial coupling. The temperature dependence of longitudinal resistivity and magnetization reveals complementary behavior, indicating the coexistence of two distinct spin states near the magnetic transition temperature. The phase fraction based resistivity model captures the distinct scattering mechanisms that govern electronic transport across different magnetic regimes. Our findings offer a direct link between microscopic disorder, interfacial magnetism and macroscopic topological phenomena in magnetic topological insulators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15540 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Structural Characterization of MnBi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Temperature and field dependent magnetic properties of MnBi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (a) and (d) show isothermal magnetization versus magnetic field (M-H) loops recorded at 2 K and 6 K respectively, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Magnetization versus magnetic field hysteresis loops at (a) 2 K and (b) 6 K, showing the field-induced magnetic response [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) Temperature-dependent resistivity of MnBi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Intertwined magnetic phase driven exchange bias and its impact on the anomalous Hall effect in MnBi$_4$Te$_7$

    INTRODUCTION The quantum anomalous Hall effect (QAHE) is a strik- ing manifestation of topological quantum physics arising from the interplay of intrinsic magnetic order and strong spin-orbit coupling [1–4]. The intrinsic magnetic topolog- ical insulator MnBi 2Te4(Bi2Te3)n (wheren = 0, 1, 2,... ) collectively known as the MBT family, has emerged as a rich...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    High-purity Mn, Bi, and Te pow- ders in proper stoichiometry were accurately weighed and ground under an argon atmosphere in a glove box to prevent oxidation

    EXPERIMENTAL METHODS MnBi4Te7 single crystals were synthesized using the self-flux method [21]. High-purity Mn, Bi, and Te pow- ders in proper stoichiometry were accurately weighed and ground under an argon atmosphere in a glove box to prevent oxidation. The homogenized mixture was pel- letized and sealed in quartz tubes under a vacuum of approximately 10...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Structural characterization MnBi4Te7 crystallizes in the P 3m1 space group with alternating unit cells of Bi 2Te3 and MnBi 2Te4 as shown in Fig

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1. Structural characterization MnBi4Te7 crystallizes in the P 3m1 space group with alternating unit cells of Bi 2Te3 and MnBi 2Te4 as shown in Fig. 1(a) [9]. The septuple-layer (SL) (Te-Bi-Te- Mn-Te-Bi-Te) and the quintuple layer (QL) (Te-Bi-Te- Bi-Te) are held together by van der Waals forces [21, 24]. Magnetism arises from Mn sp...

    work page

  4. [4]

    This will uncover pos- sible phase coexistence, spin reorientation transitions, and field-sensitive behavior

    Coexisting AFM-FM phase To understand the intricate interplay between ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic interactions in MnBi4Te7, it is essential to probe the thermal evo- lution of magnetic ordering. This will uncover pos- sible phase coexistence, spin reorientation transitions, and field-sensitive behavior. To probe this, we per- formed temperature-de...

    work page

  5. [5]

    The M-H loops for 2K and 6K are presented in Fig

    Exchange bias and training effect We conducted training effect measurements using field- cooled M-H loops with successive cycles to analyze the evolution of exchange bias and interaction parameters [41]. The M-H loops for 2K and 6K are presented in Fig. 3(a) & 3(d), respectively. We can see the gradual reduction in the exchange bias effect. The reduction ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    CONCLUSION In summary, a robust interplay between interfacial magnetism and topological transport in single-crystalline MnBi4Te7 is deduced based on atomic-scale surface imag- ing, exchange bias and anomalous Hall measurements. A crossover from asymmetric to symmetric exchange bias, along with temperature-dependent training effects and Hall resistance shi...

    work page

  7. [7]

    is grateful for fellowship (DST/INSPIRE/03 /2021/002483) assistance from the Department of Sci- ence and Technology, Government of India

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS N.F. is grateful for fellowship (DST/INSPIRE/03 /2021/002483) assistance from the Department of Sci- ence and Technology, Government of India. This work at IIT Delhi was supported by the ANRF Core Re- search Grant(CRG/2023/008193). SM, IS and SP ac- knowledge the partial funding support from the Nano Mission project ’CONCEPT’ (DST/NM/TUE/Q...

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Chang, J

    C.-Z. Chang, J. Zhang, X. Feng, J. Shen, Z. Zhang, M. Guo, K. Li, Y. Ou, P. Wei, L.-L. Wang, Z.-Q. Ji, Y. Feng, S. Ji, X. Chen, J. Jia, X. Dai, Z. Fang, S.-C. Zhang, K. He, Y. Wang, L. Lu, X.-C. Ma, and Q. Xue, Science 340, 167 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Chang, W

    C.-Z. Chang, W. Zhao, D. Y. Kim, H. Zhang, B. A. Assaf, D. Heiman, and J. S. Moodera, Nature Materials 14, 473 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    Serlin, C

    M. Serlin, C. L. Tschirhart, H. Polshyn, Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Balents, and A. F. Young, Science 367, 900 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Y. Deng, Y. Yu, M.-Z. Shi, Z. Guo, Z. Xu, J. Wang, X. Chen, and Y. Zhang, Science 367, 895 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    J. Henk, A. Ernst, S. V. Eremeev, E. V. Chulkov, I. V. Maznichenko, and I. Mertig, Physical Review Letters 108, 206801 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    J. Li, Y. Li, W. Duan, Y. Xu, and S.-C. Zhang, Science Advances 5, eaaw5685 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    M. W.-Y. He, H. Sun, and Q. L. He, Frontiers of Physics 14, 43401 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    M. M. Otrokov, T. V. Menshchikova, M. G. Vergniory, I. P. Rusinov, A. Y. Vyazovskaya, Y. M. Koroteev, G. Bihlmayer, A. Ernst, P. M. Echenique, A. Arnau, V. M. Silkin, and E. V. Chulkov, 2D Materials 4, 025082 11 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    I. I. Klimovskikh, M. M. Otrokov, D. Estyunin, S. V. Ere- meev, S. O. Filnov, A. Koroleva, A. Isaeva, K. Kißner, M. ¨Unzelmann, C. H. Min, S. Moser, T. R. F. Peixoto, F. Reinert, A. Ernst, P. M. Echenique, and E. V. Chulkov, npj Quantum Materials 5, 54 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Tokura, K

    Y. Tokura, K. Yasuda, and A. Tsukazaki, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 126 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Zhao and Q

    Y. Zhao and Q. Liu, Applied Physics Letters 119, 060502 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Ceccardi, A

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

    2023

  12. [20]

    S. Li, M. Gong, S. Cheng, H. Jiang, and X. C. Xie, Na- tional Science Review 11, nwad262 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Ovchinnikov, X

    D. Ovchinnikov, X. Huang, Z. Lin, Z. Fei, J. Cai, T. Song, M. He, Q. Jiang, C. Wang, H. Li, Y. Wang, Y. Wu, D. Xiao, J.-H. Chu, J. Yan, C.-Z. Chang, Y.-T. Cui, and X. Xu, Nano Letters 21, 2544 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    ˇSmejkal, Y

    L. ˇSmejkal, Y. Mokrousov, B. Yan, and A. H. MacDon- ald, Nature Physics 14, 242 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Baltz, A

    V. Baltz, A. Manchon, M. Tsoi, T. Moriyama, T. Ono, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015005 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Gibertini, M

    M. Gibertini, M. Koperski, A. F. Morpurgo, and K. S. Novoselov, Nature Nanotechnology 14, 408 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    K. S. Burch, D. Mandrus, and J.-G. Park, Nature 563, 47 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    ˇSmejkal, A

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

    2022

  19. [27]

    P. Sass, J. Kim, D. Vanderbilt, J. Yan, and W. Wu, Phys- ical Review Letters 125, 037201 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    M. Z. Shi, B. Lei, C. S. Zhu, D. H. Ma, J. H. Cui, Z. L. Sun, H. Chen, Y. Y. Wang, T. Zhang, Q. Li, and X. H. Chen, Physical Review B 100, 155144 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Garnica, M

    M. Garnica, M. M. Otrokov, P. C. Aguilar, I. I. Klimovskikh, D. Estyunin, Z. S. Aliev, J. E. Ortega, A. V. Vedyayev, A. Ernst, E. V. Chulkov, and R. Mi- randa, npj Quantum Materials 7, 7 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    X. Wu, J. Li, X. Ma, Y. Zhang, Y. Liu, C. Zhou, K. Wang, W. Duan, and Y. Zhao, Physical Review X 10, 031013 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    L. Ding, C. Hu, E. Feng, C. Jiang, I. A. Kibalin, A. Gukasov, and H. Cao, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 54, 174003 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    M.-H. Du, J. Yan, V. R. Cooper, and M. Eisenbach, Adv. Funct. Mater. 31, 10.1002/adfm.202006516 (2021)

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    C. Yan, Y. Zhu, L. Miao, S. Fernandez-Mulligan, E. Green, R. Mei, Y. Wang, W. Wu, H. Lei, S. A. Yang, J. Wang, and S. Yang, Nano Letters 22, 9815 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    M. M. Otrokov, I. I. Klimovskikh, H. Bentmann, D. Es- tyunin, A. Zeugner, Z. S. Aliev, S. Gaß, A. U. B. Wolter, A. V. Koroleva, A. M. Shikin, M. Blanco-Rey, M. Hoffmann, I. P. Rusinov, M. G. Vergniory, A. Kimura, L. Petaccia, G. Di Santo, R. C. Vidal, S. Schatz, K. Kißner, M. ...

    2019

  27. [35]

    A. Gao, Y. F. Liu, C. Hu, J. X. Qiu, C. Tzschaschel, B. Ghosh, P. Liu, J. Liu, Y. Liu, Y. Liu, R. Tang, S. Wang, X. Wang, Q. Ma, C. Liu, P. Jarillo-Herrero, N. Gedik, Q. Liu, T.-R. Chang, and S. Y. Xu, Nature 595, 521 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    X. Xu, S. Yang, H. Wang, R. Guzman, Y. Gao, Y. Zhu, Y. Peng, Z. Zang, M. Xi, S. Tian, Y. Li, H. Lei, Z. Luo, J. Yang, Y. Wang, T. Xia, W. Zhou, Y. Huang, and Y. Ye, Nature Communications 13, 7646 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Y. Shi, Y. Bai, Y. Li, Y. Feng, Q. Li, H. Zhang, Y. Chen, Y. Tong, J. Luan, H. Wang, H. Wang, C. Guo, W. Wu, C. Gao, S.-C. Zhang, X. Ma, K. L. Wang, C.-Z. Chang, and J. Shen, Physical Review Materials8, 124202 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Paccard, C

    D. Paccard, C. Schlenker, O. Massenet, R. Montmory, and A. Yelon, physica status solidi (b) 16, 301 (1966)

    1966

  31. [39]

    S. K. Chong, Y. Cheng, H. Man, S. H. Lee, Y. Wang, B. Dai, M. Tanabe, T.-H. Yang, Z. Mao, K. A. Moler, and K. L. Wang, Nature Communications 15, 2881 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Q. L. He, G. Yin, A. J. Grutter, L. Pan, X. Che, G. Yu, and K. L. Wang, Nature Communications9, 2767 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    J. Cui, B. Lei, M. Shi, Z. Xiang, T. Wu, and X. Chen, Nano Letters 23, 1652 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Huang, G

    Y. Huang, G. Wang, S. Sun, J. Wang, R. Peng, Y. Lin, X. Zhai, Z. Fu, and Y. Lu, Scientific Reports 5, 15261 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    C. Hu, K. N. Gordon, P. Liu, J. Liu, X. Zhou, P. Hao, D. Narayan, E. Emmanouilidou, H. Sun, Y. Liu, H. Brawer, A. P. Ramirez, L. Ding, H. Cao, Q. Liu, D. Dessau, and N. Ni, Nature Communications 11, 97 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Sinha and S

    S. Sinha and S. Manna, Surfaces and Interfaces 62, 106171 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    Liang, A

    Z. Liang, A. Luo, M. Shi, Q. Zhang, S. Nie, J. J. Ying, B. Chen, Y. Zhang, L. Li, B. Shen, H.-H. Wen, and X. H. Chen, Physical Review B 102, 161115 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    S. K. Mishra, F. Radu, H. A. D¨ urr, and W. Eberhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 177208 (2009)

    2009

  39. [47]

    Ba landa, Acta Physica Polonica A 124, 964 (2013)

    M. Ba landa, Acta Physica Polonica A 124, 964 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    Binek, Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 70, 014421 (2004)

    C. Binek, Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 70, 014421 (2004)

    2004

  41. [49]

    S. R. Ali, M. R. Ghadimi, M. Fecioru-Morariu, B. Beschoten, and G. G¨ untherodt, Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 85, 012404 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    G. M. Amara, A. Dhahri, J. Dhahri, and E. K. Hlil, RSC Advances 7, 10928 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    Hcini, S

    S. Hcini, S. Khadhraoui, S. Zemni, A. Triki, H. Rah- mouni, M. Boudard, and M. Oumezzine, Journal of su- perconductivity and novel magnetism 26, 2181 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.