Ultrafast Faraday Rotation Probe of Chiral Phonon-Polaritons in LiNbO3

Aldair Alejandro; Clayton D. Moss; Jeremy A. Johnson; Matthew Lutz; Megan F. Biggs; Sin-hang (Enoch) Ho

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Ultrafast Faraday Rotation Probe of Chiral Phonon-Polaritons in LiNbO3

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that circularly polarized THz light excites chiral phonon-polaritons in LiNbO3, producing an ultrafast Faraday rotation consistent with an induced magnetic field of about 11 tesla, while noting that part of the rotation…

desk verdict A genuinely useful differential-chopping scheme and a clean helicity-dependent probe rotation, but the ~11 T magnetic-field claim is not supported because the isolated signal is exactly what a non-magnetic quadratic THz nonlinearity would produce. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22232 v1 pith:ZY7LDE2Z submitted 2025-07-29 cond-mat.mes-hall physics.app-ph

Megan F. Biggs , Sin-hang (Enoch) Ho , Aldair Alejandro , Matthew Lutz , Clayton D. Moss , Jeremy A. Johnson This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.app-ph PACS 78.20.Ls63.20.-e

keywords chiralphonon-polaritonsFaradayrotationinverseeffectphononmagnetismtime-reversalsymmetrybreakingLiNbO3terahertzspectroscopyultrafastmagneto-optics

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 reports that sending a chirally polarized terahertz pulse—built from two perpendicularly polarized THz pulses with a controlled relative delay—through z-cut LiNbO3 produces an ultrafast rotation of an 800 nm probe beam. The rotation reverses when the THz helicity is reversed and grows as the pump becomes more circular, the signature expected from a time-reversal-symmetry-breaking atomic motion. Calibrating the rotation with the material's Verdet constant, the authors estimate an induced magnetic field of about 11 T in a material that is initially nonmagnetic. They model the signal as a combination of electronic inverse-Faraday and phononic angular-momentum contributions. They also caution that linearly polarized THz pulses alone rotate the probe, so part of the measured rotation may not be a true magnetic Faraday effect.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are chiral phonon-polaritons in LiNbO3: phonon-polaritons are transverse lattice vibrations coupled to light that propagate into the crystal, and chirality is imposed by driving the two degenerate orthogonal E modes with perpendicular THz fields separated by a controlled delay. The differential chopping pattern of Eq. (1), $S_{\mathrm{nonlinear}} = (S_{\mathrm{both}}-S_{\mathrm{none}}) - (S_{\mathrm{THz1}}-S_{\mathrm{none}}) - (S_{\mathrm{THz2}}-S_{\mathrm{none}})$, isolates the chiral response by removing the vertical-only and horizontal-only pump rotations. The polarization rotation is converted to a field through $\Delta\theta = v M L$, with the Verdet constant confirmed in the supplemental material, and the model assigns magnetic moment via $M = \gamma L = \gamma \mathbf{Q} \times \dot{\mathbf{Q}}$, with the phonon coordinate $\mathbf{Q}$ computed for 500 points along the dispersion curve from the damped Lorentz-oscillator equation of motion (Eq. 4).

What would settle it

Measure the isolated chiral rotation on LiNbO3 samples of two different thicknesses, keeping all other conditions fixed: a true bulk Faraday signal should scale linearly with thickness, while a Raman-scattering or other nonmagnetic rotation would not; failure of that scaling would falsify the 11 T field estimate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that chiral phonon-polaritons—coupled light–phonon excitations of the degenerate E(TO1) branches that propagate into the crystal—break time-reversal symmetry in LiNbO3 and produce a transient magnetization detected as Faraday rotation. When the relative delay between the vertical and horizontal THz pulses makes the combined field most circular, the probe rotation peaks; switching between left- and right-handed excitation flips its sign, as expected if the direction of circular ionic and electronic motion reverses. Calibrated with the Verdet constant, the peak rotation corresponds to about 11 T, and the time traces are reproduced by summing a phononic magnetic-moment contribution $M = \gamma \mathbf{Q} \times \dot{\mathbf{Q}}$ over the dispersion curve with an electronic inverse-Faraday contribution. The paper is explicit that this is an estimate: linearly polarized THz excitation alone also rotates the probe, so the whole chiral signal is not yet proven to be a true magnetic Faraday effect.

Load-bearing premise

The subtraction in Eq. (1) assumes that the probe rotations from the two linearly polarized THz pumps are independent and simply add when both pumps are on, so subtracting single-pump signals removes all nonmagnetic rotation; if cross-terms or pump-induced changes to the linear responses exist, the isolated chiral signal still contains nonmagnetic contributions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the interpretation is right, a nonmagnetic ferroelectric can be magnetized all-optically on a picosecond timescale, with the field direction set by the THz helicity.
The isolated Faraday signal gives a background-free readout of chiral phonon-polariton excitation and follows the expected ellipticity dependence, vanishing for linear pumping.
The model's success with a linear combination of electronic and phononic contributions indicates that both the inverse Faraday effect and ionic angular momentum participate.
Because linearly polarized THz excitation also rotates the probe, the magnetic-field interpretation remains tentative until independent magnetic probes confirm it.

Reading between the lines

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

An editorial extension: the 11 T figure should not be read as a measured field until the rotation is shown to scale with sample thickness or with the Verdet constant at other probe wavelengths.
A concrete test would place a thin magneto-optically active layer next to the LiNbO3 and look for helicity-dependent rotation in that layer, separating local magnetic field lines from optical artifacts.
The same two-pulse chiral THz synthesis and differential chopping could rank other ferroelectrics by the size of their residual nonlinear rotation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The thing to know: this paper's real contribution is the differential-chopping scheme that isolates the cross-term response to two crossed THz pulses, and the clean sign flip of that isolated signal with THz helicity. The “~11 Tesla” claim in the abstract, though, rests on an identification the experiment does not establish. Eq. 1 isolates S_both − S_THz1 − S_THz2 + S_none, which is precisely the quadratic cross-term in the total THz field. Any material response proportional to E_x E_y — including the THz Kerr (quadratic electro-optic) effect — produces a probe rotation that changes sign when the relative phase of the two THz pulses reverses, which is exactly what happens when switching LHCP/RHCP. So the helicity dependence alone does not discriminate a magnetic Faraday effect from a non-magnetic quadratic response. The authors are clearly aware that non-magnetic mechanisms are live: they show linearly polarized THz pumps rotate the probe (Figs. 3a,b), and they explicitly hedge in the conclusion. But they still convert the isolated rotation angle to a B-field via the Verdet constant, and that step requires ruling out a non-magnetic quadratic contribution, which the paper does not do.

What is genuinely good: the dual-chopping isolation is a real methodological advance over Luo et al. and Basini et al. It lets them subtract linear-pump-induced probe rotation, and the ellipticity dependence of the isolated signal (zero near linear polarization, maximum near circular, sign flip) is a clean, model-independent observation. The supplemental Verdet measurement is a useful check. The modeling is honest about its free parameters — relative electronic/phononic scaling, mode effective charge, gyromagnetic ratio set to unity — even if that honesty undercuts the quantitative claim.

The soft spots, in proportion: first, the 11 T estimate is fitted, not measured; the relative amplitudes of the electronic and phononic contributions are adjusted at one ellipticity angle and then carried to others, and the data and model have no error bars. Second, the quadratic Kerr background is not addressed. A referee should ask for a control that separates magnetic Faraday rotation from a non-magnetic quadratic probe rotation — for example, a zero-Verdet sample or a direct measurement of the quadratic electro-optic response. Third, the ellipticity-angle assignment has a known offset: the authors note the most circular polarization should be at ±45°, yet they report −36°, −118°, and 52°, so the quantitative angle axis is soft.

Who this is for: people working on ultrafast magneto-optics and phonon magnetism. The experimental technique is worth their attention; the field-strength number is not. I would send this to a serious referee — the method is novel and the data appear real — but the paper needs major revision on the interpretation before the B-field claim can stand. My own verdict would be conditional.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports time-resolved Faraday rotation measurements in z-cut LiNbO3 excited by two orthogonally polarized, relatively delayed THz pulses. A dual-chopping scheme isolates a nonlinear cross-term that the authors attribute to chiral (circularly polarized) THz driving of E-symmetry phonon-polaritons. The isolated signal changes sign when the THz helicity is reversed and its magnitude peaks near circular ellipticity, as expected for a time-reversal-symmetry-breaking response. The authors model the signal as a linear combination of an electronic inverse-Faraday contribution and a phononic contribution, and they convert the measured rotation to a peak magnetic field of roughly 11 T using the static Verdet constant of LiNbO3. The text candidly notes that non-magnetic mechanisms can also rotate the probe, especially because linearly polarized THz pumps alone produce a probe rotation, but the abstract and conclusion nevertheless present the ~11 T value as the central quantitative claim.

Significance. If the magnetic interpretation is upheld, the experiment would be a valuable demonstration of ultrafast time-reversal-symmetry breaking by chiral phonon-polaritons in a ferroelectric, extending recent work on CeF3 and SrTiO3. The experimental scheme is a genuine methodological contribution: the use of two perpendicular THz pumps with differential chopping to subtract the response of the individual linear pump components is a useful control that previous works did not implement. The observed helicity-dependent sign flip and the ellipticity-angle dependence are clear, falsifiable signatures. However, the central quantitative conclusion, the ~11 T field, is not yet firmly supported, and the decomposition into electronic and phononic contributions is a fitted rather than a predicted result. The paper's value would be substantially increased by either additional controls ruling out non-magnetic quadratic responses or by reframing the field estimate as an upper bound with explicit caveats.

major comments (3)

[Experimental, Eq. (1)] The differential chopping scheme in Eq. (1) isolates only the cross-term between the two THz pump fields, S_both - S_THz1 - S_THz2 + S_none. This cross-term appears in any nonlinear optical response that is quadratic in the THz electric field, including non-magnetic effects such as the THz Kerr effect or field-induced probe-polarization changes, and this quadratic response reverses sign when the relative phase between the two THz pulses is changed by pi, which is exactly what happens when switching from LHCP to RHCP. The manuscript itself demonstrates in Fig. 3(a,b) that linearly polarized THz pumps rotate the probe through a non-magnetic Raman-type mechanism, so non-magnetic quadratic contributions to the isolated signal cannot be ruled out a priori. The statement in the Results that the isolated signal in Fig. 3(d) 'purely arises from the chiral phonon-polariton excitation' is therefore too strong; the authors must provide an additional control or argument that separates a magnetic Faraday rotation from a non-magnetic Kerr-type cross-term.
[Results and Discussion, Eq. (2) and Fig. 5] The conversion of the measured rotation angle into a magnetic field of ~11 T relies entirely on Eq. (2), Delta-theta = v M L, and assumes that the isolated rotation is a genuine Faraday rotation caused by a uniform magnetic field along the probe propagation direction. This assumption is the load-bearing step of the paper's headline claim, and it is not justified. The same isolated rotation could be produced by a non-magnetic quadratic response, as noted above, and the static Verdet constant measured in Supplemental S1 may not apply unchanged to an ultrafast, spatially non-uniform induced field. The authors should either provide a control experiment that isolates the magnetic part of the response (e.g., probing a field-dependent response that cannot arise from a Kerr-type nonlinearity) or explicitly rephrase the ~11 T value as a model-dependent upper limit, not as a measured magnetic field.
[Results and Discussion, Fig. 5 and Supplemental S2] The two-component model in Fig. 5 is fitted rather than predicted. The text states that the relative magnitude of the electronic and phononic contributions is adjusted to match the data at one ellipticity angle, and then the same scaling is used for all other angles. Since the model amplitudes are in arbitrary units, with the gyromagnetic ratio set to unity and the mode effective charge Z* an arbitrary constant (Supplemental S2), the fit demonstrates only that a linear combination of the two computed time-domain shapes can reproduce the observed waveform; it does not independently confirm that the signal is magnetic, nor does it quantitatively determine the relative contribution of phonons and electrons. The phrase 'suggesting that both phononic and electronic contributions lead to a magnetic field signal' should be softened to reflect that the shape comparison is consistent with a sum of the two modeled contributions but does not establish their physical origin.

minor comments (4)

[General presentation] There are several typographical and grammatical issues, including 'neither electronic or phononic modeled contributions respectively alone do not match' in the Results and the duplicated 'b) phononic contribution b)' in the Fig. 5 caption; these should be corrected.
[Supplemental S3] The three methods for calculating the ellipticity angle give noticeably different values (-36, -33, and -31 degrees for the same delay), and the authors acknowledge that the most circular polarization should occur at 45 degrees. The uncertainty in the ellipticity-angle determination should be propagated into Fig. 4(b) or at least discussed quantitatively, since the plotted model-data comparison depends on these angles.
[Eq. (1) and text] The equation in the main text is rendered with garbled subscripts and symbols; the equation should be typeset cleanly so that the four chopping combinations are unambiguous.
[Introduction] The Ampere-Maxwell law is written with garbled notation; please ensure the equation is corrected and the permeability and permittivity symbols are properly displayed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Faraday rotation and induced-field estimate are anchored in an independent measurement and Verdet calibration, and the two-mechanism decomposition is an explicitly fitted model with an independent ellipticity-angle test.

full rationale

The central measurement is the differential-chopping Faraday rotation of Eq. 1, an experimentally isolated cross-term between the two perpendicular THz pumps; the rotation angle is not constructed from the model, and the ~11 T estimate follows from the measured angle, the sample thickness, and a Verdet constant that the authors independently confirm with static-field measurements (Supplement S1). The phononic and electronic contributions are generated from the magnetic-moment expression of Eq. 3 (external Ref. [3]) using measured THz waveforms and dispersion/damping from Ref. [15] (a published experimental measurement by the same group, i.e., independent input data, not the target conclusion). The relative weights of the two modeled components are adjusted to match the measured trace in Fig. 5(c), which the paper explicitly describes as fitting rather than as an ab initio prediction; the fitted scaling is then applied across THz delays to produce the ellipticity-angle dependence in Fig. 4(b), giving the model an independent test. The paper candidly flags the main interpretative limitation: it observes probe rotation even for linearly polarized THz pumps and, citing Merlin, acknowledges that non-magnetic, non-Maxwellian field effects may contribute, saying 'a magnetic field isn't the only origin of the signal we measure.' That is an assumption/completeness caveat about the meaning of the signal, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs by construction. No equation in the paper sets a predicted quantity equal to a fitted or self-referential quantity, so no significant circularity is present.

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

The central observation is an experimental signal, not a derivation. The main free inputs are the fitted relative scale of the two modeled contributions and the hand-set Z* and gamma values, which together mean the model can match the data but does not independently predict the field magnitude. The B-field estimate rests on the Verdet constant and the Faraday relation, both of which are assumed to hold on ultrafast timescales.

free parameters (4)

relative scaling factor between electronic and phononic model contributions = not stated; adjusted at -34 degrees ellipticity
Used in Fig. 5(c) and Fig. 4(b) to match the modeled linear combination to the experimental Faraday signal; this is a fit, not a prediction.
mode effective charge Z* = arbitrary constant, same for all dispersion points
Chosen by hand in Eq. 4/S3; affects the absolute amplitude of modeled phonon motion, which is then scaled by the fit above.
gyromagnetic ratio gamma = set to unity
Set to 1 in the text to simplify Eq. 3, so all modeled magnetic moments are in arbitrary units; the absolute scale is supplied by the experimental Verdet constant and the fitted scaling.
ellipticity angle calculation method = Method 2 of three methods
Three methods give -36, -33, and -31 degrees for the same delay; choosing Method 2 affects the x-axis of Fig. 4(b) and the comparison to the model, a hand-selected choice.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The measured signals from the four pulse sequences add linearly, so the nonlinear chiral signal is the combination in Eq. 1.
The entire isolation of the chiral signal rests on the assumption that the two linear pump responses are independent and unchanged when both pumps are present; no cross terms are considered.
domain assumption The Faraday rotation angle is proportional to the induced magnetic field via Delta theta = v M L with a constant Verdet coefficient valid at 800 nm on ultrafast timescales.
Used in Eq. 2 and for the field estimate; the Verdet constant is taken from Ref. [20] and checked statically, but its validity for a transient THz-driven field is assumed.
domain assumption The phonon-polariton response is described by a damped harmonic oscillator (Eq. 4) with frequencies and damping from Ref. [15] and a single arbitrary effective charge for all dispersion points.
This is the standard driven oscillator model, but the input parameters are extracted from the authors' own prior work and the effective charge is arbitrary, limiting the model to shape predictions.
domain assumption Magnetic moment is M = gamma Q x Qdot for both phonon and electron motion, with gamma set to unity.
Eq. 3 and the modeling in Fig. 5; the proportionality holds for circular motion, but treating gamma as unity removes any absolute calibration from the model.
domain assumption The THz electric field measured by electro-optic sampling is the field that drives the LiNbO3 sample at the same position and focus.
The modeled E field in Eq. 4 is an experimentally measured time trace, while the actual in-sample field may differ due to focus position, propagation, and sample interfaces; the authors note a possible small offset in Fig. 4(b).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultrafast Faraday Rotation Probe of Chiral Phonon-Polaritons in LiNbO3." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZY7LDE2Z

@misc{pith2026250722232,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultrafast Faraday Rotation Probe of Chiral Phonon-Polaritons in LiNbO3},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZY7LDE2Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22232}
}

read the original abstract

Time reversal symmetry breaking motion of chiral phonon-polaritons in LiNbO3 is probed via the ultrafast Faraday effect. By combining a pair of perpendicularly polarized THz pulses with the right relative delay, we create a chiral THz driving field to excite chiral phonon-polaritons. The chiral atomic motion combines with the inverse Faraday effect from the circularly polarized THz pump to induce a magnetic moment field in the nonmagnetic material, LiNbO3. We attempt to quantify the strength of the magnetic field with Faraday rotation probe measurements. The direction of the Faraday signal flips when the input THz pulse is changed from left- to right-circular polarization, and we estimate a strong induced magnetic field strength of ~11 Tesla based on the Faraday rotation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22232 by the authors.

**Figure 4.** a) Isolated Faraday nonlinear signal arising from rotation of the probe polarization at the three most circular ellipticity angles. Dark blue is the response from left-handed circularly polarized (LHCP) input THz light and the lighter blues are the response from right-handed circularly polarized (RHCP) input THz light. b) The Faraday rotation signal magnitude as a function of ellipticity angle. The lines indicate th… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Experimental data of the induced magnetic field compared to the modeled magnetic field from a) the electronic (inverse Faraday effect) contribution, b) phononic contribution b) and the linear combination of both contributions (c). The y-axis magnitude is determined using the probe polarization rotation and the Verdet constant for LiNbO3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Unifying microscopic theories for the phono-magnetic effect
cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The adiabatic, perturbative, and Floquet derivations of the phonon-induced effective magnetic field agree in the low-frequency limit, unifying prior specialized theories.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

P. S. Pershan, J. P. van der Ziel, and L. D. Malmstrom, Physical Review 143, 574 (1966)

work page 1966
[2]

J. P. van der Ziel, P. S. Pershan, and L. D. Malmstrom, Physical Review Letters 15, 190 (1965)

work page 1965
[3]

D. M. Juraschek, M. Fechner, A. V. Balatsky, and N. A. Spaldin, Physical Review Materials 1, 014401 (2017)

work page 2017
[4]

D. M. Juraschek, T. Neuman, and P. Narang, Physical Review Research 4, 013129 (2022)

2022
[5]

D. M. Juraschek and N. A. Spaldin, Physical Review Materials 3, 064405 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

J. Luo, T. Lin, J. Zhang, X. Chen, E. R. Blackert, R. Xu, B. I. Yakobson, and H. Zhu, Science 382, 698 (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

Basini, M

M. Basini, M. Pancaldi, B. Wehinger, M. Udina, V. Unikandanunni, T. Tadano, M. C. Hoffmann, A. V. Balatsky, and S. Bonetti, Nature 628, 534 (2024)

work page 2024
[8]

Zhang and S

T. Zhang and S. Murakami, Physical Review B 105, 235204 (2022)

work page 2022

Show all 22 references

[9]

Zhu et al., Science 359, 579 (2018)

H. Zhu et al., Science 359, 579 (2018)

2018
[10]

H. Ueda, M. García-Fernández, S. Agrestini, C. P. Romao, J. van den Brink, N. A. Spaldin, K.-J. Zhou, and U. Staub, Nature 618, 946 (2023)

2023
[11]

X. Gong, M. Kargarian, A. Stern, D. Yue, H. Zhou, X. Jin, V. M. Galitski, V. M. Yakovenko, and J. Xia, Science Advances 3, e1602579 (2017)

2017
[12]

X. Xiao, F. Zhan, W. Kong, J. Fan, R. Wang, and X. Wu, New Journal of Physics 24, 093029 (2022)

2022
[13]

D. M. Juraschek, P. Narang, and N. A. Spaldin, Physical Review Research 2, 043035 (2020)

2020
[14]

Merlin, arXiv.org (2023)

R. Merlin, arXiv.org (2023)

2023
[15]

B. E. Knighton, B. S. Dastrup, C. L. Johnson, and J. A. Johnson, Physical Review B 97, 214307 (2018)

2018
[16]

B. E. K. M. F. Biggs, A. Alejandro, L. M. Davis, C. Rader, J. A. Johnson, arxiv.org (2023)

2023
[17]

Rader, M

C. Rader, M. F. Nielson, B. E. Knighton, Z. B. Zaccardi, D. J. Michaelis, and J. A. Johnson, Opt. Lett. 47, 5985 (2022)

2022
[18]

H.-W. Lin, G. Mead, and G. A. Blake, Physical Review Letters 129, 207401 (2022)

2022
[19]

O. H.-C. Cheng, D. H. Son, and M. Sheldon, Nature Photonics 14, 365 (2020)

2020
[20]

Kase and K

S. Kase and K. Ohi, Ferroelectrics 8, 419 (1974)

1974
[21]

J. Shan, J. I. Dadap, and T. F. Heinz, Opt. Express 17, 7431 (2009)

2009
[22]

Rader et al., ACS Photonics 9, 3720 (2022)

C. Rader et al., ACS Photonics 9, 3720 (2022). Supplemental Material for: Faraday Rotation of Chiral Phonon-Polariton in LiNbO3 S1. Verdet Constant Measurements We experimentally confirmed the Verdet constant from Ref

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

P. S. Pershan, J. P. van der Ziel, and L. D. Malmstrom, Physical Review 143, 574 (1966)

work page 1966

[2] [2]

J. P. van der Ziel, P. S. Pershan, and L. D. Malmstrom, Physical Review Letters 15, 190 (1965)

work page 1965

[3] [3]

D. M. Juraschek, M. Fechner, A. V. Balatsky, and N. A. Spaldin, Physical Review Materials 1, 014401 (2017)

work page 2017

[4] [4]

D. M. Juraschek, T. Neuman, and P. Narang, Physical Review Research 4, 013129 (2022)

2022

[5] [5]

D. M. Juraschek and N. A. Spaldin, Physical Review Materials 3, 064405 (2019)

work page 2019

[6] [6]

J. Luo, T. Lin, J. Zhang, X. Chen, E. R. Blackert, R. Xu, B. I. Yakobson, and H. Zhu, Science 382, 698 (2023)

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Basini, M

M. Basini, M. Pancaldi, B. Wehinger, M. Udina, V. Unikandanunni, T. Tadano, M. C. Hoffmann, A. V. Balatsky, and S. Bonetti, Nature 628, 534 (2024)

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Zhang and S

T. Zhang and S. Murakami, Physical Review B 105, 235204 (2022)

work page 2022