Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Pressure boosts interlayer antiferromagnetic exchange by 50% in (Co0.5Fe0.5)5GeTe2; surface layers, not bulk FM, explain the small AFM-state hysteresis loops.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 05:58 UTC pith:UYKROQNQ

load-bearing objection Clean pressure tuning of interlayer exchange in high-TN CFGT, plus a plausible surface-layer reading of the small AFM loops; quantitative claim holds, qualitative claim is already caveated. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05548 v1 pith:UYKROQNQ submitted 2026-07-06 cond-mat.mes-hall

Effect of pressure on the magnetic properties of (Co_(0.5)Fe_(0.5))₅GeTe₂

Tam\'as Prok , Zolt\'an Kov\'acs-Krausz , Harvey Stanfield , Bing Zhao , Michael Leon\'ard Morgan , B\'alint F\"ul\"op , Marcos H. D. Guimar\~aes , Ivan J. Vera-Marun
show 4 more authors
Saroj Prasad Dash Szabolcs Csonka P\'eter Makk Endre T\'ov\'ari
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords 2D antiferromagnetpressure tuninginterlayer exchangeanomalous Hall effectlinear-chain modelspin-flop transition(Co0.5Fe0.5)5GeTe2surface magnetism
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper shows that hydrostatic pressure is a powerful knob for the magnetism of the high-temperature 2D antiferromagnet (Co0.5Fe0.5)5GeTe2. Magnetoresistance measurements under pressures up to 2 GPa reveal that the interlayer exchange field grows by about 50% while the anisotropy stays essentially unchanged, so both the spin-flop field and the width of the canted antiferromagnetic phase expand. The same data also contain small rectangular hysteresis loops inside the antiferromagnetic state. Rather than invoke a coexisting bulk ferromagnetic phase, the authors demonstrate that these loops arise naturally from the switching of surface layers in a linear-chain model: odd-layer flakes show a single remanent loop, even-layer flakes show a pair of loops that can overlap at low temperature and produce apparent remanence. The result simultaneously quantifies how sensitive the interlayer coupling is to distance and offers a surface-based account of an experimental feature previously attributed to mixed magnetic order.

Core claim

In A-type antiferromagnetic (Co0.5Fe0.5)5GeTe2 the interlayer exchange J increases by approximately 50% under 2 GPa while the anisotropy K remains pressure-independent; the small hysteretic transitions observed inside the AFM phase are the even-odd surface-layer switching predicted by the linear-chain model, not signatures of a coexisting bulk ferromagnetic phase.

What carries the argument

The two-sublattice energy functional (and its finite-layer linear-chain generalization) whose global and local minima yield the spin-flop field H_SF = sqrt[K(2J-K)] and saturation field H_FM = 2J-K, allowing J and K to be extracted from measured transition fields and predicting surface-layer steps of height Delta M = 2.

Load-bearing premise

That the measured Hall-resistance step heights map directly onto the magnetization jumps predicted by the linear-chain model, so their ratio can confirm that only surface layers are switching.

What would settle it

A thickness series of even- and odd-layer flakes in which the small-loop height scales with surface area rather than total thickness, or a direct magnetic imaging experiment that shows only the outermost layers reverse inside the AFM phase while the bulk remains compensated.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Interlayer exchange in CFGT (and related Fe5GeTe2 derivatives) can be continuously tuned by pressure or strain without changing the anisotropy, giving a practical handle on spin-flop and canted-AFM windows.
  • Apparent remanence or mixed AFM/FM signatures in even-layer samples can be reinterpreted as overlapping surface-layer hysteresis rather than bulk phase coexistence.
  • Device design that relies on surface magnetism (e.g., exchange-bias or spin-orbit-torque interfaces) must treat the outermost CFGT layers as magnetically distinct from the bulk.
  • The same linear-chain analysis can be applied to other A-type 2D antiferromagnets to decide whether small AFM-state loops are surface or bulk effects.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because J is so sensitive to interlayer spacing, modest uniaxial strain or van-der-Waals heterostructure engineering may achieve comparable exchange tuning without a pressure cell.
  • Surface oxidation or reconstruction that locally alters J could invert the surface-layer moment, offering a route to electrically or chemically gated surface magnetism while the bulk remains AFM.
  • If the surface layers dominate the anomalous Hall response, thickness-dependent Hall measurements on deliberately odd- versus even-layer flakes become a simple diagnostic for stacking and termination quality.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports hydrostatic-pressure magnetoresistance (anomalous Hall) measurements on A-type antiferromagnetic (Co0.5Fe0.5)5GeTe2 flakes (10–90 nm). Using the two-sublattice model, the authors extract the interlayer exchange J and uniaxial anisotropy K from the measured spin-flop (HSF) and saturation (HFM) fields (Eqs. 2a,b). They find that J increases by ~50 % at 2 GPa while K remains essentially pressure-independent, thereby widening both the AFM and canted-AFM phases. In addition, they argue that the small hysteretic loops observed inside the AFM phase are produced by surface-layer switching (even–odd layer-number effect) within the linear-chain model rather than by a coexisting bulk ferromagnetic phase. Supporting data from four samples of different thickness and reversible pressure cycles are presented.

Significance. CFGT is among the highest-TN 2D antiferromagnets, and the demonstrated pressure tunability of interlayer exchange (while anisotropy stays fixed) supplies a concrete experimental handle for heterostructure design. The two-sublattice extraction is clean, reversible, and consistent across samples; the temperature-independent HSF/HFM ratio (Fig. 3c) further corroborates the model. The linear-chain interpretation of the AFM-phase loops offers a falsifiable alternative to the coexisting-FM scenario that has appeared in the recent literature. Together these results strengthen the microscopic understanding of Co-substituted Fe5GeTe2 and are of clear interest to the 2D-magnetism and spintronics communities.

major comments (1)
  1. The secondary claim that the AFM-phase loops arise solely from surface-layer switching rests on a qualitative comparison of simulated Mz(H) shapes (Fig. 4c,d) with observed loop topology. The quantitative test offered—the ratio ΔR/Δr/N—is systematically lower than the model value 0.5 and is temperature-dependent (Fig. 4g,h and Discussion). While the authors list plausible reasons (surface oxidation, nonlinear ordinary Hall background, different surface vs bulk magnetizations), the discrepancy remains unquantified. A short additional analysis (e.g., thickness dependence of the residual or an estimate of the ordinary-Hall nonlinearity) would make the surface-layer interpretation more robust without altering the central pressure-tuning result.
minor comments (4)
  1. HFM cannot be resolved below ~150–200 K (Fig. 2c); the low-T values of J and K are therefore extrapolations. A brief statement of the accessible temperature window and of the uncertainty this introduces would be helpful.
  2. The layer thickness used to convert flake thickness into N (0.96 nm) is taken from the literature; a short justification or AFM cross-check would remove any ambiguity for the thinnest sample (D, ~10 layers).
  3. In Fig. 3a the experimental K/J lines are shown only for sample A; adding the corresponding lines from SI Fig. S6 would make the multi-sample consistency immediately visible.
  4. A few typographical issues: “N´eel” appears with inconsistent accents; “cAFM” is introduced without expansion in the abstract; SI figure captions occasionally mix “sample A” with “sample: CBA”.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: J and K are extracted from measured transition fields via standard two-sublattice formulas; the linear-chain account of AFM-phase loops is a qualitative shape comparison, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The load-bearing quantitative claim (interlayer exchange J rises ~50 % at 2 GPa while anisotropy K is essentially pressure-independent) follows directly from the measured spin-flop and saturation fields H_SF and H_FM via the textbook two-sublattice expressions (Eqs. 2a,b). The ratio H_SF/H_FM is observed to be temperature-independent (Fig. 3c), which is an independent consistency check of the model rather than a tautology. The same extraction is repeated on multiple samples (SI Fig. S6). The secondary claim that the small hysteretic loops inside the AFM phase arise from surface-layer switching (even–odd layer-number effect) is presented only as a qualitative match between simulated M_z(H) topologies of the linear-chain energy (Eq. 4) and the observed loop shapes; the authors themselves report that the experimental step-height ratio ΔR/Δr/N lies systematically below the model value 0.5 and is T-dependent, listing possible experimental caveats. No parameter is fitted to one subset of the data and then re-presented as a prediction of a closely related quantity, no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior self-citations, and the self-citations that appear (crystal characterization, pressure-cell method) are not load-bearing for the pressure-tuning or chain-model conclusions. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the paper’s own measurements.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard micromagnetic energy functionals (two-sublattice and linear-chain) whose parameters are fitted to measured transition fields, plus the domain assumption that anomalous Hall resistance tracks the out-of-plane magnetization component. No new particles or forces are postulated; free parameters are the usual exchange and anisotropy constants extracted from data.

free parameters (3)
  • interlayer exchange J(T,p) = ~50% rise at 2 GPa (absolute scale set by M(T))
    Extracted from measured H_SF and H_FM via Eqs. (2a,b) or (3a,b); the 50% increase at 2 GPa is the headline result.
  • anisotropy K(T,p) = pressure-independent within experimental scatter
    Same extraction; found to be essentially pressure-independent.
  • layer magnetization factor M(T)
    Unknown temperature-dependent prefactor that rescales both transition fields; cancelled in the ratio H_SF/H_FM used to obtain K/J.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Two-sublattice energy functional (Eq. 1) with uniform saturated layer magnetizations and negligible surface contribution for thick flakes (N~94).
    Standard for A-type AFMs; invoked throughout Section IV to extract J and K.
  • domain assumption Linear-chain energy (Eq. 4) in which each layer is treated individually and surface layers have only one neighbor.
    Used to generate the even/odd Mz(H) patterns that are compared with the small hysteresis loops.
  • domain assumption Anomalous Hall resistance is proportional to the net out-of-plane magnetization (after ordinary-Hall background subtraction).
    Standard AHE interpretation; underlies all extraction of transition fields and step heights ΔR, Δr.
  • domain assumption Hydrostatic pressure primarily reduces interlayer distance without changing stacking or introducing new magnetic phases up to 2 GPa.
    Supported by reversibility of H_SF after pressure release, but not independently verified by structural probes in this work.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 19419 in / 2898 out tokens · 24701 ms · 2026-07-11T05:58:33.053297+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Cobalt-doped Fe$_5$GeTe$_2$ possesses a rich magnetic phase diagram as a function of Co concentration. The nature of magnetic order in (Co$_{0.5}$Fe$_{0.5}$)$_5$GeTe$_2$ is especially interesting, as it has been shown to exhibit ferromagnetic order, A-type antiferromagnetic (AFM) order, or potentially both at the same time. Here we present magnetoresistance measurements on antiferromagnetic (Co$_{0.5}$Fe$_{0.5}$)$_5$GeTe$_2$ at a series of pressures and extract the anisotropy and interlayer exchange fields using the two-sublattice model. We show a 50 % increase of the interlayer exchange at 2 GPa, highlighting the sensitivity of magnetic properties to interlayer distance. In addition, we find that the sharp hysteretic transitions observed within the AFM state can be qualitatively described by a linear chain model, which suggests an even-odd effect as a function of layer number instead of a coexisting ferromagnetic phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05548 by B\'alint F\"ul\"op, Bing Zhao, Endre T\'ov\'ari, Harvey Stanfield, Ivan J. Vera-Marun, Marcos H. D. Guimar\~aes, Michael Leon\'ard Morgan, P\'eter Makk, Saroj Prasad Dash, Szabolcs Csonka, Tam\'as Prok, Zolt\'an Kov\'acs-Krausz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. a) Scanning transmission electron microscope image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. a-b) Examples of the raw Hall data and its derivatives on sample A at 276 K as a function of increasing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. a) Phase diagram of the two-sublattice system ac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. a,b) Fine structure of the anomalous Hall resistance in the AFM phase in samples B and A, respectively. The step [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Baltz, A

    V. Baltz, A. Manchon, M. Tsoi, T. Moriyama, T. Ono, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Antiferromagnetic spintronics, Re- views of Modern Physics90, 15005 (2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    A. D. Din, O. J. Amin, P. Wadley, and K. W. Edmonds, Antiferromagnetic spintronics and beyond, npj Spintron- ics2, 25 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    T. Song, X. Cai, M. W.-Y. Tu, X. Zhang, B. Huang, N. P. Wilson, K. L. Seyler, L. Zhu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. A. McGuire, D. H. Cobden, D. Xiao, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Giant tunneling magnetoresistance in spin-filter van der waals heterostructures, Science360, 1214 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    D. R. Klein, D. Macneill, J. L. Lado, D. Soriano, E. Navarro-Moratalla, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Manni, P. Canfield, J. Fern´ andez-Rossier, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Probing magnetism in 2d van der waals crystalline insulators via electron tunneling, Sci- ence360, 1218 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    V. P. Ningrum, B. Liu, W. Wang, Y. Yin, Y. Cao, C. Zha, H. Xie, X. Jiang, Y. Sun, S. Qin, X. Chen, T. Qin, C. Zhu, L. Wang, and W. Huang, Recent advances in two-dimensional magnets: Physics and devices towards spintronic applications, Research , 1768918 (2020), doi: 10.34133/2020/1768918

    doi:10.34133/2020/1768918 2020

  6. [6]

    Elahi, G

    E. Elahi, G. Dastgeer, G. Nazir, S. Nisar, M. Bashir, H. A. Qureshi, D. kee Kim, J. Aziz, M. Aslam, K. Hus- sain, M. A. Assiri, and M. Imran, A review on two- dimensional (2d) magnetic materials and their potential applications in spintronics and spin-caloritronic, Compu- tational Materials Science213, 111670 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    M. Mi, H. Xiao, L. Yu, Y. Zhang, Y. Wang, Q. Cao, and Y. Wang, Two-dimensional magnetic materials for spin- tronic devices, Materials Today Nano24, 100408 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Z. Jia, M. Zhao, Q. Chen, Y. Tian, L. Liu, F. Zhang, D. Zhang, Y. Ji, B. Camargo, K. Ye, R. Sun, Z. Wang, and Y. Jiang, Spintronic devices upon 2d magnetic ma- terials and heterojunctions, ACS Nano19, 9452 (2025), doi: 10.1021/acsnano.4c14168

    work page doi:10.1021/acsnano.4c14168 2025

  9. [9]

    J. F. Sierra, J. Fabian, R. K. Kawakami, S. Roche, and S. O. Valenzuela, Van der waals heterostructures for spin- tronics and opto-spintronics, Nature Nanotechnology16, 856 (2021)

    2021

  10. [10]

    H. Yang, S. O. Valenzuela, M. Chshiev, S. Couet, B. Di- eny, B. Dlubak, A. Fert, K. Garello, M. Jamet, D.- E. Jeong, K. Lee, T. Lee, M.-B. Martin, G. S. Kar, P. S´ en´ eor, H.-J. Shin, and S. Roche, Two-dimensional materials prospects for non-volatile spintronic memories, Nature606, 663 (2022)

    2022

  11. [11]

    J. Song, J. Chen, and M. Sun, Van der waals engineer- ing toward designer spintronic heterostructures, Materi- als Today Electronics6, 100070 (2023)

    2023

  12. [12]

    Roche, B

    S. Roche, B. van Wees, K. Garello, and S. O. Valenzuela, Spintronics with two-dimensional materials and van der waals heterostructures, 2D Materials11, 43001 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    Thapa and B

    A. Thapa and B. Sharma, A review on novel low- dimensional materials based magnetic tunnel junctions: Opportunities, challenges, and applications, Advanced Materials Technologies10, e00133 (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    B. Zhao, R. Ngaloy, L. Pandey, H. Bangar, D. P. Dubey, and S. P. Dash, Nanoelectronics with two dimensional magnets, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2602.24046 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Z. Fei, B. Huang, P. Malinowski, W. Wang, T. Song, J. Sanchez, W. Yao, D. Xiao, X. Zhu, A. F. May, W. Wu, D. H. Cobden, J.-H. Chu, and X. Xu, Two-dimensional itinerant ferromagnetism in atomically thin fe3gete2, Na- ture Materials17, 778 (2018)

    2018

  16. [16]

    Y. Deng, Y. Yu, Y. Song, J. Zhang, N. Z. Wang, Z. Sun, Y. Yi, Y. Z. Wu, S. Wu, J. Zhu, J. Wang, X. H. Chen, and Y. Zhang, Gate-tunable room-temperature ferro- magnetism in two-dimensional fe3gete2, Nature563, 94 (2018)

    2018

  17. [17]

    Zhang, F

    G. Zhang, F. Guo, H. Wu, X. Wen, L. Yang, W. Jin, W. Zhang, and H. Chang, Above-room-temperature strong intrinsic ferromagnetism in 2d van der waals fe3gate2 with large perpendicular magnetic anisotropy, Nature Communications13, 5067 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    A. F. May, D. Ovchinnikov, Q. Zheng, R. Hermann, S. Calder, B. Huang, Z. Fei, Y. Liu, X. Xu, and M. A. McGuire, Ferromagnetism near room temperature in the cleavable van der waals crystal fe5gete2, ACS Nano13, 4436 (2019), doi: 10.1021/acsnano.8b09660

    work page doi:10.1021/acsnano.8b09660 2019

  19. [19]

    B. Zhao, R. Ngaloy, S. Ghosh, S. Ershadrad, R. Gupta, K. Ali, A. M. Hoque, B. Karpiak, D. Khokhri- akov, C. Polley, B. Thiagarajan, A. Kalaboukhov, P. Svedlindh, B. Sanyal, and S. P. Dash, A room- temperature spin-valve with van der waals ferromagnet fe5gete2/graphene heterostructure, Advanced Materials 35, 2209113 (2023)

    2023

  20. [20]

    C. Tian, F. Pan, S. Xu, K. Ai, T. Xia, and P. Cheng, Tunable magnetic properties in van der waals crystals (fe1-xcox)5gete2, Applied Physics Letters116, 202402 (2020)

    2020

  21. [21]

    A. F. May, M.-H. Du, V. R. Cooper, and M. A. McGuire, Tuning magnetic order in the van der waals metal fe5gete2 by cobalt substitution, Physical Review Materi- als4, 74008 (2020)

    2020

  22. [22]

    Ngaloy, B

    R. Ngaloy, B. Zhao, S. Ershadrad, R. Gupta, M. Davou- diniya, L. Bainsla, L. Sj¨ ostr¨ om, M. A. Hoque, A. Kal- aboukhov, P. Svedlindh, B. Sanyal, and S. P. Dash, 8 Strong in-plane magnetization and spin polarization in (co0.15fe0.85)5gete2/graphene van der waals het- erostructure spin-valve at room temperature, ACS Nano 18, 5240 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    L. Lu, Q. Wang, H. Duan, K. Zhu, T. Hu, Y. Ma, S. Shen, Y. Niu, J. Liu, J. Wang, S. A. Ekahana, J. Dreiser, Y. Soh, W. Yan, G. Wang, Y. Xiong, N. Hao, Y. Lu, and M. Tian, Tunable magnetism in atomically thin itinerant antiferromagnet with room-temperature ferromagnetic order, Nano Letters24, 5984 (2024), doi: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.4c00472

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.4c00472 2024

  24. [24]

    B. Zhao, L. Bainsla, S. Ershadrad, L. Zeng, R. Ngaloy, P. Svedlindh, E. Olsson, B. Sanyal, and S. P. Dash, Co- existing non-trivial van der waals magnetic orders enable field-free spin-orbit torque magnetization dynamics, Ad- vanced Materials37, 2502822 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    Zhang, Y.-T

    H. Zhang, Y.-T. Shao, R. Chen, X. Chen, S. Susarla, D. Raftrey, J. T. Reichanadter, L. Caretta, X. Huang, N. S. Settineri, Z. Chen, J. Zhou, E. Bourret-Courchesne, P. Ercius, J. Yao, P. Fischer, J. B. Neaton, D. A. Muller, R. J. Birgeneau, and R. Ramesh, A room tempera- ture polar magnetic metal, Physical Review Materials6, 44403 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    Zhang, X

    H. Zhang, X. Chen, T. Wang, X. Huang, X. Chen, Y.-T. Shao, F. Meng, P. Meisenheimer, A. N’Diaye, C. Klewe, P. Shafer, H. Pan, Y. Jia, M. F. Crommie, L. W. Mar- tin, J. Yao, Z. Qiu, D. A. Muller, R. J. Birgeneau, and R. Ramesh, Room-temperature, current-induced magne- tization self-switching in a van der waals ferromagnet, Advanced Materials36, 2308555 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    F¨ ul¨ op, A

    B. F¨ ul¨ op, A. M´ arffy, E. T´ ov´ ari, M. Kedves, S. Zihlmann, D. Indolese, Z. Kov´ acs-Krausz, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, C. Sch¨ onenberger, I. K´ ezsm´ arki, P. Makk, and S. Csonka, New method of transport mea- surements on van der waals heterostructures under pres- sure, Journal of Applied Physics130, 064303 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    T. Li, S. Jiang, N. Sivadas, Z. Wang, Y. Xu, D. Weber, J. E. Goldberger, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. J. Fen- nie, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, Pressure-controlled inter- layer magnetism in atomically thin cri3, Nature Materials 18, 1303 (2019)

    2019

  29. [29]

    T. Song, Z. Fei, M. Yankowitz, Z. Lin, Q. Jiang, K. Hwangbo, Q. Zhang, B. Sun, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- abe, M. A. McGuire, D. Graf, T. Cao, J.-H. Chu, D. H. Cobden, C. R. Dean, D. Xiao, and X. Xu, Switching 2d magnetic states via pressure tuning of layer stacking, Na- ture Materials18, 1298 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    Nagaosa, J

    N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. MacDonald, and N. P. Ong, Anomalous hall effect, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 1539 (2010)

    2010

  31. [31]

    J. M. D. Coey,Magnetism and Magnetic Materials(Cam- bridge University Press, 2010) pp. 195–199

    2010

  32. [32]

    Feder and E

    J. Feder and E. Pytte, Low-temperature behavior of the anisotropic heisenberg antiferromagnet in the neighbor- hood of the magnetic phase boundaries, Physical Review 168, 640 (1968)

    1968

  33. [33]

    Aharoni,An Introduction to the Theory of Ferromag- netism(Oxford University Press, 2000)

    A. Aharoni,An Introduction to the Theory of Ferromag- netism(Oxford University Press, 2000)

    2000

  34. [34]

    M´ arffy, E

    A. M´ arffy, E. T´ ov´ ari, Y.-F. Liu, A. Gao, T. Huang, L. Oroszl´ any, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S.- Y. Xu, P. Makk, and S. Csonka, Pressure-tunable phase transitions in atomically thin chern insula- tor mnbi2te4, Nano Letters26, 1782 (2026), doi: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.5c05229

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.5c05229 2026

  35. [35]

    Z. Wang, M. Gibertini, D. Dumcenco, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, E. Giannini, and A. F. Morpurgo, De- termining the phase diagram of atomically thin layered antiferromagnet crcl3, Nature Nanotechnology14, 1116 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    C. Ye, C. Wang, Q. Wu, S. Liu, J. Zhou, G. Wang, A. S¨ oll, Z. Sofer, M. Yue, X. Liu, M. Tian, Q. Xiong, W. Ji, and X. R. Wang, Layer-dependent interlayer antiferromagnetic spin reorientation in air-stable semi- conductor crsbr, ACS Nano16, 11876 (2022), doi: 10.1021/acsnano.2c01151

    work page doi:10.1021/acsnano.2c01151 2022

  37. [37]

    C. Tan, J. Lee, S.-G. Jung, T. Park, S. Albarakati, J. Par- tridge, M. R. Field, D. G. McCulloch, L. Wang, and C. Lee, Hard magnetic properties in nanoflake van der waals fe3gete2, Nature Communications9, 1554 (2018)

    2018

  38. [38]

    Roemer, C

    R. Roemer, C. Liu, and K. Zou, Robust ferromagnetism in wafer-scale monolayer and multilayer fe3gete2, npj 2D Materials and Applications4, 33 (2020)

    2020

  39. [39]

    M. Wang, B. Lei, K. Zhu, Y. Deng, M. Tian, Z. Xi- ang, T. Wu, and X. Chen, Hard ferromagnetism in van der waals fe3gate2 nanoflake down to monolayer, npj 2D Materials and Applications8, 22 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    Ershadrad, S

    S. Ershadrad, S. Ghosh, D. Wang, Y. Kvashnin, and B. Sanyal, Unusual magnetic features in two-dimensional fe5gete2 induced by structural reconstructions, The Jour- nal of Physical Chemistry Letters13, 4877 (2022)

    2022

  41. [41]

    T. A. Tyson, S. Amarasinghe, A. M. M. Abeykoon, R. Lalancette, K. Du, X. Fang, S.-W. Cheong, A. Al- Mahboob, and J. T. Sadowski, Surface magnetism in fe3gete2 van der waals ferromagnet, 2D Materials12, 025021 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    Y. Li, X. Hu, A. Fereidouni, R. Basnet, K. Pandey, J. Wen, Y. Liu, H. Zheng, H. O. H. Churchill, J. Hu, A. K. Petford-Long, and C. Phatak, Visualizing the effect of oxidation on magnetic domain behavior of nanoscale fe3gete2 for applications in spintronics, ACS Applied Nano Materials6, 4390 (2023)

    2023

  43. [43]

    D. Kim, S. Park, J. Lee, J. Yoon, S. Joo, T. Kim, K. joon Min, S.-Y. Park, C. Kim, K.-W. Moon, C. Lee, J. Hong, and C. Hwang, Antiferromagnetic coupling of van der waals ferromagnetic fe3gete2, Nanotechnology 30, 245701 (2019)

    2019

  44. [44]

    M. A. Tschudin, D. A. Broadway, P. Siegwolf, C. Schrader, E. J. Telford, B. Gross, J. Cox, A. E. E. Dubois, D. G. Chica, R. Rama-Eiroa, E. J. G. San- tos, M. Poggio, M. E. Ziebel, C. R. Dean, X. Roy, and P. Maletinsky, Imaging nanomagnetism and magnetic phase transitions in atomically thin crsbr, Nature Com- munications15, 6005 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    Pellet-Mary, D

    C. Pellet-Mary, D. Dutta, M. A. Tschudin, P. Sieg- wolf, B. Gross, D. A. Broadway, J. Cox, C. Schrader, J. Happacher, D. G. Chica, C. R. Dean, X. Roy, and P. Maletinsky, Lateral exchange bias for n´ eel-vector con- trol in atomically thin antiferromagnets, Nature Commu- nications16, 9725 (2025). 9 SUPPLEMENT AR Y INFORMA TION

    2025

  46. [46]

    In addition, the difference of the derivatives of the sweeps is plotted as colormaps as a function ofHandT, to better illustrate the evolution of hystereses with temperature

    Hall resistance of CFGT samples Figures S1, S2, S3 and S4 show measurements of the Hall resistance of samples A-D as a function of up and down field sweeps. In addition, the difference of the derivatives of the sweeps is plotted as colormaps as a function ofHandT, to better illustrate the evolution of hystereses with temperature. Especially, the low-|H|co...

  47. [47]

    TheT-dependentJ, Kparameters are plotted in Fig

    Two-sublattice analysis We have performed the same two-sublattice model analysis for samples B, C as in the main text for sample A. TheT-dependentJ, Kparameters are plotted in Fig. S6a,b at 0 and 2 GPa, respectively. The ratio ofH SF andH FM is plotted in panels c,d. Regarding sample D,H FM could not be resolved from the second derivative ofR xy. While ∆R...

  48. [48]

    The colormaps in Fig

    Global minimum calculations We have numerically calculated phase diagrams on theH, Kplane forN= 7 to 10 layers following the global minimum of the linear chain model in phase space, withHapplied along the easy axis. The colormaps in Fig. S7 showM z resulting from the calculations. Panels b,d) demonstrate for even number of layers the presence of intermedi...