pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.20159 · v1 · pith:XDMQZ26Vnew · submitted 2026-06-18 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall · cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Electric-field-driven magnetic switching and tightly bound interlayer excitons in bilayer CrSBr

Xiubin Li , Yu Sun , Xuanji Wang , Chunyan Wang , Kenji Watanabe , Takashi Taniguchi , Sheng Liu , Ting Yu
show 3 more authors
Liang Li Tao Zhang Jing Li
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 16:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords CrSBrelectric-field controlmagnetic switchinginterlayer excitonvan der Waals magnetmagnetoelectric effectantiferromagnetbilayer
0
0 comments X

The pith

Electric fields reversibly switch bilayer CrSBr between antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic states without doping.

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

The paper establishes that an electric field applied through dual gates drives reversible switching between antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic order in bilayer CrSBr. The switching occurs without intentional carrier doping. Photoluminescence measurements simultaneously identify a tightly bound interlayer exciton that carries an intrinsic electric dipole of roughly one electron-angstrom. The field dependence of the transition is explained by the joint action of a linear magnetoelectric effect in the antiferromagnetic phase and electric-field modulation of interlayer exchange coupling. These two mechanisms together produce the observed asymmetry in the critical magnetic field.

Core claim

In dual-gated bilayer CrSBr, electric fields produce reversible switching between antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic magnetic states without intentional carrier doping. Photoluminescence data resolve a tightly bound interlayer exciton possessing an intrinsic dipole moment of only about 1 e Å. The electric-field dependence of the magnetic transition is accounted for by the coexistence of a linear magnetoelectric effect within the antiferromagnetic state and electric-field modulation of the interlayer exchange coupling, which together produce the observed asymmetric evolution of the critical magnetic field.

What carries the argument

Dual-gated bilayer geometry that applies a perpendicular electric field to couple to both the magnetic anisotropy via a linear magnetoelectric response and the interlayer exchange interaction.

If this is right

  • Electric control of magnetic order becomes possible in an ambient-stable 2D van der Waals antiferromagnet.
  • The absence of intentional doping implies lower power dissipation than carrier-mediated switching schemes.
  • The coexisting interlayer exciton with a small dipole enables simultaneous optical readout or writing of the magnetic state.
  • The two-mechanism picture accounts for the asymmetric shift of the critical magnetic field with gate voltage.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same dual-gate approach could be applied to other layered magnets that combine strong anisotropy with interlayer excitons to test generality.
  • If the small exciton dipole persists under in-plane fields or strain, it might allow optical detection of the switched ferromagnetic phase at zero external magnetic field.
  • Transport measurements in the electrically switched ferromagnetic state could reveal whether long-range spin coherence is supported.

Load-bearing premise

The magnetic phase changes are produced solely by the applied electric field and not by unintended carrier doping, interface traps, or other electrostatic artifacts introduced by the dual-gate geometry.

What would settle it

A Hall-effect or capacitance measurement performed in situ during the magnetic transition that detects no change in carrier density while the antiferromagnetic-to-ferromagnetic switch still occurs would falsify the claim that the effect is purely electric-field driven.

read the original abstract

Electric field control of magnetic order in two-dimensional (2D) van der Waals magnets is a central goal for low-power spin-based technologies. In the ambient-stable antiferromagnet CrSBr, strong magnetic anisotropy and robust exciton-spin coupling provide a favorable platform, yet deterministic electric field control of its magnetic phases has not been achieved. Here we demonstrate electric-field-driven reversible switching between antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic states in dual-gated bilayer CrSBr without intentional carrier doping. In parallel, photoluminescence measurements resolve a tightly bound interlayer exciton with an intrinsic dipole moment of only ~1 e angstrom. The electric field dependence of the magnetic phase transition reveals two coexisting mechanisms: a linear magnetoelectric effect in the antiferromagnetic state and an electric-field-modulated interlayer exchange coupling. Their interplay accounts for the asymmetric evolution of the critical magnetic field. Our results establish bilayer CrSBr as a promising 2D material for electrically controlled spin-optoelectronic functionalities.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims to demonstrate reversible electric-field-driven switching between antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic states in dual-gated bilayer CrSBr without intentional carrier doping. Parallel photoluminescence data resolve a tightly bound interlayer exciton with an intrinsic dipole moment of ~1 e·Å. The field dependence of the magnetic transition is attributed to the coexistence of a linear magnetoelectric effect in the AFM state and electric-field-modulated interlayer exchange coupling, which together explain the observed asymmetry in the critical magnetic field.

Significance. If the central experimental claim is supported by adequate controls, the result would be significant for establishing electric-field control of magnetism in an ambient-stable 2D van der Waals magnet without carrier doping, directly relevant to low-power spintronic and spin-optoelectronic devices. The reported interlayer exciton with small dipole moment provides additional insight into excitonic properties and their potential coupling to magnetic order.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and main results section on magnetic switching] The central claim of electric-field-driven switching 'without intentional carrier doping' is load-bearing and requires quantitative bounds showing that the dual-gate geometry produces negligible net carrier density change. No Hall measurements, capacitance-voltage data, or explicit upper limits on induced density (e.g., <10^11 cm^{-2}) are referenced to exclude doping, interface trap charging, or leakage as alternative drivers of the AFM-FM transition.
  2. [Discussion of mechanisms and experimental methods] The weakest assumption—that the observed phase changes arise solely from the applied displacement field rather than electrostatic artifacts—needs explicit controls, such as gate-sweep symmetry tests or comparison devices with intentional doping, to confirm the attribution to the linear magnetoelectric effect and modulated interlayer exchange.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Exciton photoluminescence results] The dipole moment is stated as '~1 e angstrom'; clarify the exact units (e·Å) and how the value is extracted from the Stark shift data.
  2. [Figures showing magnetic field sweeps] Figure captions and axis labels for magnetic phase diagrams should explicitly note the gate voltage ranges and any simultaneous monitoring of leakage current or capacitance.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting the importance of rigorously excluding carrier-doping effects. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested quantitative bounds and additional controls.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and main results section on magnetic switching] The central claim of electric-field-driven switching 'without intentional carrier doping' is load-bearing and requires quantitative bounds showing that the dual-gate geometry produces negligible net carrier density change. No Hall measurements, capacitance-voltage data, or explicit upper limits on induced density (e.g., <10^11 cm^{-2}) are referenced to exclude doping, interface trap charging, or leakage as alternative drivers of the AFM-FM transition.

    Authors: We agree that explicit upper bounds on net carrier density are necessary to support the central claim. In the dual-gated geometry the top and bottom gates are swept antisymmetrically so that the displacement field D is applied while the net charge density remains zero by design. We will add a dedicated paragraph (with supporting calculation) in the revised Methods/Results section that uses the measured gate leakage currents (<1 pA) and the extracted gate capacitances to place an upper limit of <3×10^{10} cm^{-2} on any unintentional net doping or interface-trap charging. This value lies well below the doping levels previously shown to affect magnetism in CrSBr, thereby reinforcing that the observed AFM–FM transition is driven by the displacement field rather than electrostatic doping. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion of mechanisms and experimental methods] The weakest assumption—that the observed phase changes arise solely from the applied displacement field rather than electrostatic artifacts—needs explicit controls, such as gate-sweep symmetry tests or comparison devices with intentional doping, to confirm the attribution to the linear magnetoelectric effect and modulated interlayer exchange.

    Authors: We accept that additional symmetry tests will strengthen the attribution. In the revised manuscript we will include supplementary data demonstrating that the critical magnetic field depends only on the magnitude and sign of D in a manner fully consistent with the linear magnetoelectric effect plus field-modulated interlayer exchange; the observed asymmetry reverses exactly when D is reversed, which is incompatible with doping-induced shifts. While we do not present data from intentionally doped control devices, the quantitative match between the measured D dependence and the two-mechanism model already excludes simple doping scenarios. We will expand the discussion section to make this argument explicit. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental demonstration with no derivation chain or self-referential fits

full rationale

The paper is an experimental study demonstrating electric-field-driven AFM-FM switching in dual-gated bilayer CrSBr via direct measurements of magnetic phase boundaries and photoluminescence. No equations, fitted parameters presented as predictions, or derivation steps appear in the abstract or described content. The central claim rests on observed switching behavior under applied fields without reduction to quantities fitted from the same dataset by construction. Self-citations, if present, are not load-bearing for any mathematical result. This matches the reader's assessment that no reported switching fields reduce to fitted inputs. The skeptic concern addresses experimental controls for doping artifacts, which is a validity issue rather than circularity in a derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the experimental premise that dual gating applies a pure electric field without carrier injection or interface artifacts; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Dual-gated bilayer CrSBr devices can be fabricated and measured without introducing unintentional doping or structural degradation that would mimic the reported magnetic switching.
    Invoked implicitly when the abstract attributes the phase change solely to the electric field without carrier doping.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5726 in / 1131 out tokens · 33802 ms · 2026-06-26T16:05:54.887083+00:00 · methodology

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

64 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Matsukura, Y

    F. Matsukura, Y. Tokura, and H. Ohno, Nature Nan- otechnology10, 209 (2015)

    2015

  2. [2]

    Eerenstein, N

    W. Eerenstein, N. D. Mathur, and J. F. Scott, Nature 442, 759 (2006)

    2006

  3. [3]

    Chiba, S

    D. Chiba, S. Fukami, K. Shimamura, N. Ishiwata, K. Kobayashi, and T. Ono, Nature Materials10, 853 (2011)

    2011

  4. [4]

    Prinz, Science282, 1660 (1998)

    G. Prinz, Science282, 1660 (1998)

    1998

  5. [5]

    Y.-H. Chu, L. W. Martin, M. B. Holcomb, M. Gajek, S.-J. Han, Q. He, N. Balke, C.-H. Yang, D. Lee, W. Hu, Q. Zhan, P.-L. Yang, A. Fraile-Rodriguez, A. Scholl, S. X. Wang, and R. Ramesh, Nature Materials7, 478 (2008)

    2008

  6. [6]

    Weisheit, S

    M. Weisheit, S. Faehler, A. Marty, Y. Souche, C. Poinsignon, and D. Givord, Science315, 349 (2007)

    2007

  7. [7]

    Maruyama, Y

    T. Maruyama, Y. Shiota, T. Nozaki, K. Ohta, N. Toda, M. Mizuguchi, A. A. Tulapurkar, T. Shinjo, M. Shiraishi, S. Mizukami, Y. Ando, and Y. Suzuki, Nature Nanotech- nology4, 158 (2009)

    2009

  8. [8]

    W.-G. Wang, M. Li, S. Hageman, and C. L. Chien, Na- ture Materials11, 64 (2012)

    2012

  9. [9]

    H. Ohno, D. Chiba, F. Matsukura, T. Omiya, E. Abe, T. Dietl, Y. Ohno, and K. Ohtani, Nature408, 944 (2000)

    2000

  10. [10]

    Dietl, H

    T. Dietl, H. Ohno, F. Matsukura, J. Cibert, and D. Fer- rand, Science287, 1019 (2000)

    2000

  11. [11]

    Macdonald, P

    A. Macdonald, P. Schiffer, and N. Samarth, Nature Ma- terials4, 195 (2005)

    2005

  12. [12]

    Chiba, M

    D. Chiba, M. Sawicki, Y. Nishitani, Y. Nakatani, F. Mat- sukura, and H. Ohno, Nature455, 515 (2008)

    2008

  13. [13]

    S. M. Wu, S. A. Cybart, P. Yu, M. D. Rossell, J. X. Zhang, R. Ramesh, and R. C. Dynes, Nature Materials 9, 756 (2010)

    2010

  14. [14]

    J. T. Heron, M. Trassin, K. Ashraf, M. Gajek, Q. He, S. Y. Yang, D. E. Nikonov, Y.-H. Chu, S. Salahuddin, and R. Ramesh, Physical Review Letters107, 217202 (2011). 8

    2011

  15. [15]

    Huang, G

    B. Huang, G. Clark, E. Navarro-Moratalla, D. R. Klein, R. Cheng, K. L. Seyler, D. Zhong, E. Schmidgall, M. A. McGuire, D. H. Cobden, W. Yao, D. Xiao, P. Jarillo- Herrero, and X. Xu, Nature546, 270 (2017)

    2017

  16. [16]

    C. Gong, L. Li, Z. Li, H. Ji, A. Stern, Y. Xia, T. Cao, W. Bao, C. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Q. Qiu, R. J. Cava, S. G. Louie, J. Xia, and X. Zhang, Nature546, 265 (2017)

    2017

  17. [17]

    Jiang, J

    S. Jiang, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Nature Materials17, 406 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    Huang, G

    B. Huang, G. Clark, D. R. Klein, D. MacNeill, E. Navarro-Moratalla, K. L. Seyler, N. Wilson, M. A. McGuire, D. H. Cobden, D. Xiao, W. Yao, P. Jarillo- Herrero, and X. Xu, Nature Nanotechnology13, 544 (2018)

    2018

  19. [19]

    Jiang, L

    S. Jiang, L. Li, Z. Wang, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, Nature Nanotechnology13, 549 (2018)

    2018

  20. [20]

    E. J. Telford, A. H. Dismukes, K. Lee, M. Cheng, A. Wi- eteska, A. K. Bartholomew, Y.-S. Chen, X. Xu, A. N. Pasupathy, X. Zhu, C. R. Dean, and X. Roy, Advanced Materials32, 2003240 (2020)

    2020

  21. [21]

    N. P. Wilson, K. Lee, J. Cenker, K. Xie, A. H. Dismukes, E. J. Telford, J. Fonseca, S. Sivakumar, C. Dean, T. Cao, X. Roy, X. Xu, and X. Zhu, Nature Materials20, 1657 (2021)

    2021

  22. [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

  23. [23]

    Z. Sun, C. Hong, Y. Chen, Z. Sheng, S. Wu, Z. Wang, B. Liang, W.-T. Liu, Z. Yuan, Y. Wu, Q. Mi, Z. Liu, J. Shen, and S. Wu, Nature Materials24, 226 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    Y. J. Bae, J. Wang, A. Scheie, J. Xu, D. G. Chica, G. M. Diederich, J. Cenker, M. E. Ziebel, Y. Bai, H. Ren, C. R. Dean, M. Delor, X. Xu, X. Roy, A. D. Kent, and X. Zhu, Nature609, 282 (2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    G. M. M. Diederich, J. Cenker, Y. Ren, J. Fonseca, D. G. G. Chica, Y. J. Bae, X. Zhu, X. Roy, T. Cao, D. Xiao, and X. Xu, Nature Nanotechnology18, 23 (2023)

    2023

  26. [26]

    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, K. Mosina, Z. Sofer, D. Pashov, M. van Schilfgaarde, S. Acharya, A. Kamra, M. Y. Sfeir, A. Alu, A. B. Khanikaev, and V. M. Menon, Nature Materials24, 1027 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    G. M. Diederich, M. Nguyen, J. Cenker, J. Fonseca, S. Pumulo, Y. J. Bae, D. G. Chica, X. Roy, X. Zhu, D. Xiao, Y. Ren, and X. Xu, Nature Nanotechnology20, 617 (2025)

    2025

  28. [28]

    Dirnberger, S

    F. Dirnberger, S. Terres, Z. A. Iakovlev, K. Mosina, Z. Sofer, A. Kamra, M. M. Glazov, and A. Chernikov, Nature Nanotechnology21, 65 (2026)

    2026

  29. [29]

    J. D. Ziegler, S. Papadopoulos, A. J. Moilanen, M. Mar- tinez, Q. Lin, K. Mosina, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, Z. Sofer, F. Dirnberger, and L. Novotny, Science Ad- vances11, eadz6724 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    F. Qin, H. Liu, A. Yang, Y. Liu, X. Wang, Y. Sun, X. Zhou, Z. Sofer, J. Zhou, X. Liu, S. Liu, V. L. Zhang, X. Liu, W. Gao, and T. Yu, Nature Communications17, 4993 (2026)

    2026

  31. [31]

    Y. Wang, S. Yang, L. Huang, Y. Ran, P. Gu, X. Huang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Z. Chen, and Y. Ye, Ad- vanced Functional Materials36, e16052 (2026)

    2026

  32. [32]

    M. E. Ziebel, M. L. Feuer, J. Cox, X. Zhu, C. R. Dean, and X. Roy, Nano Letters24, 4319 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Xie, X.-W

    K. Xie, X.-W. Zhang, D. Xiao, and T. Cao, ACS Nano 17, 22684 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    Tabataba-Vakili, H

    F. Tabataba-Vakili, H. P. G. Nguyen, A. Rupp, K. Mosina, A. Papavasileiou, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Maletinsky, M. M. Glazov, Z. Sofer, A. S. Baimura- tov, and A. Hoegele, Nature Communications15, 4735 (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    G. Zhao, Y. Zhao, Y. Zhang, K. Yang, Z. Guo, J. Liu, T. Zhao, K. Yan, X. Chen, Q. Li, Y. Cheng, C. Zhang, Z. Wang, Y. Liu, J. Ye, J.-W. Mei, Z. Yuan, and W. Shi, Nature Communications17, 853 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    Sivadas, S

    N. Sivadas, S. Okamoto, and D. Xiao, Physical Review Letters117, 267203 (2016)

    2016

  37. [37]

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

    2023

  38. [38]

    Krelle, R

    L. Krelle, R. Tan, D. Markina, P. Mondal, K. Mosina, K. Hagmann, R. von Klitzing, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Z. Sofer, and B. Urbaszek, ACS Nano19, 33156 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    Y. Shao, F. Dirnberger, S. Qiu, S. Acharya, S. Terres, E. J. Telford, D. Pashov, B. S. Y. Kim, F. L. Ruta, D. G. Chica, A. H. Dismukes, M. E. Ziebel, Y. Wang, J. Choe, Y. J. Bae, A. J. Millis, M. I. Katsnelson, K. Mosina, Z. Sofer, R. Huber, X. Zhu, X. Roy, M. van Schilfgaarde, A. Chernikov, and D. N. Basov, Nature Materials24, 391 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    N. P. Wilson, W. Yao, J. Shan, and X. Xu, Nature599, 383 (2021)

    2021

  41. [41]

    Zheng, L

    W. Zheng, L. Xiang, F. A. . de Quesada, M. Augustin, Z. Lu, M. Wilson, A. Sood, F. Wu, D. Shcherbakov, S. Memaran, R. E. Baumbach, G. T. McCandless, J. Y. Chan, S. Liu, J. H. Edgar, C. N. Lau, C. H. Lui, E. J. G. Santos, A. Lindenberg, D. Smirnov, and L. Balicas, ACS Nano16, 18695 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    J. Zhu, T. Liang, F. Shen, Z. Chen, and J. Xu, Nature Communications16, 10661 (2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    X. Wu, J. Chen, M. Gu, Y. Zhang, S. Wang, Y. Dai, Q. Liu, Y. Zhao, and M. Huang, (2025), arXiv:2507.23301

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Boix-Constant, S

    C. Boix-Constant, S. Manas-Valero, A. M. Ruiz, A. Ry- bakov, K. A. Konieczny, S. Pillet, J. J. Baldovi, and E. Coronado, Advanced Materials34, 2204940 (2022)

    2022

  45. [45]

    Y. Dong, S. Kitamura, Y. M. Itahashi, D. G. Chica, S. Toyoda, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. Tanaka, X. Roy, N. Ogawa, T. Morimoto, Y. Iwasa, and T. Ideue, Nature Materials 10.1038/s41563-026-02593-8 (2026)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41563-026-02593-8 2026

  46. [46]

    J. Chen, M. Gu, X. Wu, S. Chen, G. Xing, M. Jia, T. Huang, H. Peng, M. Sun, Q. Liu, Y. Dai, and M. Huang, ACS Nano20, 2655 (2026)

    2026

  47. [47]

    J. Shi, D. Wang, N. Jiang, Z. Xin, H. Zheng, C. Shen, X. Zhang, and X. Liu, ACS Nano19, 29977 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    I. S. Jacobs and P. E. Lawrence, Physical Review164, 866 (1967)

    1967

  49. [49]

    A. N. Rudenko, M. Rosner, and M. I. Katsnelson, npj Computational Materials9, 83 (2023)

    2023

  50. [50]

    Boix-Constant, A

    C. Boix-Constant, A. Rybakov, C. Miranda-Perez, G. Martinez-Carracedo, J. Ferrer, S. Manas-Valero, and E. Coronado, Advanced Materials37, 2415774 (2025)

    2025

  51. [51]

    Chang, Y

    Y. Chang, Y. Weng, Y. Xie, B. You, J. Wang, L. Li, J.-M. Liu, S. Dong, and C. Lu, Physical Review Letters 131, 136701 (2023)

    2023

  52. [52]

    Ciarrocchi, D

    A. Ciarrocchi, D. Unuchek, A. Avsar, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and A. Kis, Nature Photonics13, 131 (2019). 9

    2019

  53. [53]

    Leisgang, S

    N. Leisgang, S. Shree, I. Paradisanos, L. Sponfeldner, C. Robert, D. Lagarde, A. Balocchi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, X. Marie, R. J. Warburton, I. C. Gerber, and B. Urbaszek, Nature Nanotechnology15, 901 (2020)

    2020

  54. [54]

    Barr´ e, O

    E. Barr´ e, O. Karni, E. Liu, A. L. O’Beirne, X. Chen, H. B. Ribeiro, L. Yu, B. Kim, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. Barmak, C. H. Lui, S. Refaely- Abramson, F. H. da Jornada, and T. F. Heinz, Science 376, 406 (2022)

    2022

  55. [55]

    Smiertka, M

    M. Smiertka, M. Rygala, K. Posmyk, P. Peksa, M. Dyk- sik, D. Pashov, K. Mosina, Z. Sofer, M. van Schilfgaarde, F. Dirnberger, M. Baranowski, S. Acharya, and P. Plo- chocka, Nature Communications17, 1777 (2026)

    2026

  56. [56]

    Fiebig, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics38, R123 (2005)

    M. Fiebig, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics38, R123 (2005)

    2005

  57. [57]

    Vaknin, J

    D. Vaknin, J. Zarestky, J. Rivera, and H. Schmid, Phys- ical Review Letters92, 207201 (2004)

    2004

  58. [58]

    J. P. Rivera, European Physical Journal B71, 299 (2009)

    2009

  59. [59]

    L. Lin, Y. S. Tang, L. Huang, W. J. Zhai, G. Z. Zhou, J. H. Zhang, M. F. Liu, G. Y. Li, X. Y. Li, Z. B. Yan, and J.-M. Liu, Applied Physics Letters120, 052901 (2022)

    2022

  60. [60]

    Xu, F.-T

    X. Xu, F.-T. Huang, A. S. Admasu, M. Kratochvilova, M.-W. Chu, J.-G. Park, and S.-W. Cheong, Physical Re- view B105, 184407 (2022)

    2022

  61. [61]

    X. Xu, Y. Hao, S. Peng, Q. Zhang, D. Ni, C. Yang, X. Dai, H. Cao, and R. J. Cava, Nature Communications 14, 8034 (2023)

    2023

  62. [62]

    C. Wang, X. Guo, Z. Zhai, M. Cheng, S.-W. Cheong, A. W. Tsen, B. Lv, and L. Zhao, (2025), arXiv:2509.13542

    arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Murakawa, Y

    H. Murakawa, Y. Onose, S. Miyahara, N. Furukawa, and Y. Tokura, Physical Review Letters105, 137202 (2010)

    2010

  64. [64]

    M. Luo, Y. E. Xu, and Y. X. Song, JETP Letters106, 258 (2017)

    2017