Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Orthogonal Geometry of Magneto-Optical Kerr Effect Enabled by Magnetization Multipole of Berry Curvature

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A normally incident laser can now measure in-plane magnetization through the magneto-optical Kerr effect.

desk verdict New experimental geometry is real and useful; the Berry-curvature interpretation is borrowed, fitted, and untested beyond symmetry. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09857 v2 pith:Y2A6VJO4 submitted 2024-12-13 physics.optics cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Haolin Pan , Han Li , Jixiang Huang , Zheng Liu , Mingyue Fang , Yanan Yuan , Daxiang Liu , Xintong Hu
show 12 more authors
Wenzhi Peng Zhenguo Liang Xiao Chang Zhigao Sheng Xianzhe Chen Lingfei Wang Qian Li Peng Li Qian Niu Yang Gao Qinghui Yang Dazhi Hou
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticscond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords magneto-opticalKerreffectorthogonalMOKEgeometryBerrycurvaturemultipolemagnetizationexpansionVoigtvectorin-planevanderWaalsferromagnetcubic
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

This paper tries to establish that the magneto-optical Kerr effect can detect the magnetization component perpendicular to the light's direction of travel, not just the component parallel to it. In the proposed orthogonal geometry, a beam at normal incidence measures both the magnitude and the in-plane direction of magnetization through Kerr rotation and ellipticity. The effect is demonstrated in a garnet film, in nickel, and in the van der Waals ferromagnet Fe5GeTe2, with angular dependences distinct from ordinary MOKE. The mechanism is traced to a multipole expansion of the Voigt vector in magnetization space: a cubic term $eta m_i^3$ from the Berry-curvature octupole makes the induced Voigt vector tilt out of the magnetization direction. If correct, this gives standard magnetometry a new observable and extends to Faraday and other magneto-optical effects.

What carries the argument

The central object is the multipole expansion of the Voigt vector in magnetization space, $Q_i = \alpha m_i + \beta m_i^3 + \cdots$, combined with the symmetry rule that the orthogonal geometry requires the sample to lack both $C_{2z}$ rotation and $M_z$ mirror symmetries about the surface normal. The $\alpha$ term is the Berry-curvature dipole and keeps $Q \parallel M$; the $\beta$ term is the octupole and tilts $Q$ away from $M$, producing a component $Q_\perp$ that couples to normally incident light. The machinery does the work of predicting the 120-degree-periodic (threefold) angular dependence of the Kerr signal in (111)-oriented cubic crystals and the absence of the effect in (001) or (011) orientations, and it explains the signal in lower-symmetry van der Waals ferromagnets where the dipole term alone cannot produce it.

What would settle it

Measure orthogonal MOKE on a (001)-oriented cubic ferromagnetic film, which the symmetry rule excludes; a nonzero signal there would falsify the criterion. Alternatively, compute the octupole coefficient $\beta$ of Eq. (1) from a microscopic band structure for fcc nickel: if the calculated $\beta$ is orders of magnitude smaller than the $\alpha$ term, the observed normal-incidence Kerr rotation cannot be attributed to the magnetization multipole.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Voigt vector $Q$, the complex vector describing Kerr rotation and ellipticity, is not generally parallel to the magnetization $M$, and the misalignment is not a rare symmetry accident but a generic consequence of the multipolar structure of Berry curvature in magnetization space. In a cubic ferromagnet, expanding $Q$ in powers of the magnetization unit vector gives $Q_i = \alpha m_i + \beta m_i^3 + \cdots$, where the $\alpha$ term reproduces the familiar collinear MOKE and the $\beta$ term, dominated by the octupole, creates a finite perpendicular component $Q_\perp$ for most crystalline orientations. This $Q_\perp$ makes the Kerr signal odd under reversal of an in-plane magnetization even for normally incident light, establishing the orthogonal MOKE geometry. The paper demonstrates the effect in Tb:BIG(111), Ni(111), and Fe5GeTe2, with the asymmetric Kerr rotation following a threefold angular pattern consistent with the octupole term, and states a general symmetry condition: absence of both $C_{2z}$ and a mirror plane containing the surface normal.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the multipole expansion $Q_i = \alpha m_i + \beta m_i^3 + \cdots$ being valid for these materials with a nonzero octupole coefficient $\beta$ large enough to produce the measured signal; if $\beta$ is negligible, the orthogonal Kerr signal vanishes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Kerr microscopy with normally incident light can image in-plane magnetic domain structures, removing the oblique-incidence requirement of longitudinal MOKE.
  • Sagnac-interferometer MOKE, which already achieves nanoradian sensitivity at normal reflection, gains an in-plane magnetization channel sensitive to ultra-weak moments.
  • The same multipole mechanism predicts an orthogonal Faraday effect, suggesting magnetic wave plates and isolators whose rotation is set by in-plane magnetization direction without an external magnetic field.
  • The symmetry guideline identifies which crystal faces and material families should show the effect: any single-crystalline sample lacking $C_{2z}$ and $M_z$, including most low-symmetry van der Waals ferromagnets, while polycrystals average the signal away.
  • The orthogonal geometry extends the multipole framework of Berry curvature from transport (in-plane anomalous Hall effect) to optics, providing a spectroscopic probe of magnetization multipoles across wavelengths.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the theory ties the effect to Berry curvature rather than to conduction electrons, one can test it in ferromagnetic insulators and at terahertz or microwave frequencies, where ordinary MOKE is weak; the paper hints at this but does not measure it.
  • A decisive cross-check the paper leaves implicit is to compute $\beta$ from a microscopic band model for nickel; if band theory finds a negligible octupole coefficient, the observed signal would need another explanation.
  • The polarity of the threefold angular pattern encodes the sign of the octupole moment, so angle-resolved orthogonal MOKE could serve as a quantitative magneto-crystalline texture probe beyond simple magnetometry.
  • If the effect survives in ultrathin van der Waals films, it offers an all-optical readout of in-plane order parameters such as altermagnetic or orbital-momentum textures, but that requires the same multipole expansion to hold at the two-dimensional limit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a new magneto-optical Kerr effect (MOKE) geometry in which a normally incident light beam detects an in-plane magnetization component that is perpendicular to the Poynting vector, a capability previously thought unavailable in conventional MOKE. The authors observe this 'orthogonal MOKE' signal in three materials: a Tb:BIG(111) garnet film, an fcc Ni(111) film, and the van der Waals ferromagnet Fe5GeTe2. They interpret the effect as arising from the multipolar structure of the Berry curvature in magnetization space, specifically a cubic octupole term in the expansion Qi = α mi + β mi^3 + ... (Eq. 1), which makes the Voigt vector non-collinear with the magnetization. The paper also provides symmetry guidelines for when this effect should appear, and discusses applications in Kerr microscopy and Sagnac interferometry.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, the paper introduces a genuinely new MOKE measurement paradigm that could enable normal-incidence Kerr microscopy of in-plane magnetic domains and extend the sensitivity of Sagnac interferometry to ultra-weak in-plane magnetic moments. The experimental observations—clear magnetization-odd Kerr signals at normal incidence in three different ferromagnets, with the expected three-fold azimuthal dependence—are novel and are presented with careful controls such as the 180° rotation test in Fe5GeTe2 and the comparison to longitudinal MOKE. The theoretical framework of magnetization multipoles of Berry curvature is conceptually appealing and could connect magneto-optics to the recent work on in-plane anomalous Hall effects. At the same time, the central theoretical claim is imported from a companion preprint (ref. 17) without a self-contained microscopic derivation, and the fitted amplitude rather than a predicted magnitude is used to validate the symmetry expansion.

major comments (4)
  1. [Theory, Eq. (1)] The load-bearing expansion Qi = α mi + β mi^3 + ... is taken directly from ref. 17, a companion preprint by the same group, and is not derived from a microscopic Hamiltonian or band structure in this manuscript. Since the orthogonal MOKE signal at normal incidence on a (111) film is proportional to β(m_x^3 + m_y^3)/√3, the existence and magnitude of the effect rest entirely on β being nonzero and sufficiently large. The experiment demonstrates that the symmetry-allowed nonlinear term is present in three materials, but it does not test the claim that this term originates from the multipole structure of the Berry curvature. Please either provide a microscopic derivation of Eq. (1) for the optical Voigt vector (e.g., from a Kubo-type calculation of the conductivity), or explicitly reframe the paper as a symmetry-based phenomenological demonstration and identify the Berry-curvature origin as a conjecture to be tested in future work.
  2. [Abstract and Discussion] The abstract claims that the orthogonal MOKE geometry 'detects both the magnitude and direction of the magnetization component perpendicular to the Poynting vector.' This is not supported by the data. In the model, the normal-incidence Kerr signal is Q_z = β(m_x^3 + m_y^3)/√3, which depends only on the direction of the unit vector m and on the material parameter β, not on the magnitude of M. The hysteresis loops demonstrate the sign reversal and the presence of a signal at saturation, but there is no calibration measurement that varies |M| at a fixed direction to establish a quantitative magnitude readout. Please either provide such a calibration and the explicit relationship between the measured Kerr signal and |M|, or modify the abstract and conclusion to claim detection of the direction (and symmetry-determined amplitude) of the in-plane magnetization component.
  3. [Figs. 2e, 3c and Details of data analysis] The fits of θA versus φ (Tb:BIG) and versus ψ (Ni) to a·sin(3φ) and a·cos(3ψ) are presented without error bars on the data points, uncertainties in the fitted amplitude, or goodness-of-fit statistics. Because the amplitude a is a free parameter, the fit establishes only that the angular dependence is consistent with a three-fold cubic term; it does not independently validate the octupole origin or provide a predicted magnitude. Please report the full fitting statistics and state explicitly that the functional form is dictated by the assumed symmetry expansion, so that the agreement is expected rather than a predictive test.
  4. [Fe5GeTe2 results, Sec. 'Orthogonal MOKE in Fe5GeTe2' and Fig. 4] The paper asserts that in Fe5GeTe2 the detected signal 'must originate exclusively from the M-multipole of Berry curvature' because the M-dipole contribution cannot generate the orthogonal MOKE under the material's symmetry. The symmetry argument is deferred to Section III of the supplementary material, and the main text does not experimentally exclude alternative origins (e.g., residual oblique incidence due to sample tilt, strain-induced linear birefringence, or magnetic circular dichroism from non-normal reflection) beyond the 180° rotation test. Please either present the symmetry exclusion in the main text in full, or soften the 'exclusively' claim and list the control measurements that would be needed to rule out these alternative mechanisms.
minor comments (6)
  1. [General] The notation 'orthogonal MOKE' risks confusion with the established 'transverse MOKE' geometry, where M is perpendicular to the plane of incidence but the light is oblique. Please add a sentence in the introduction explicitly distinguishing the normal-incidence geometry introduced here from transverse MOKE.
  2. [Eq. (1) and Fig. 1e-f] The quantities α and β are introduced as dipole and octupole contributions, but the terms 'dipole' and 'octupole' in magnetization space are not defined in the main text. A one-sentence definition of the multipole expansion of the Berry curvature in M space would help the reader; the color scales in Fig. 1e-f are also missing and should be added to the caption.
  3. [Fig. 2 and 'Details of data analysis'] The saturated regions for linear fitting are |H| > 100 Oe for Tb:BIG, while Fig. 2b shows an in-plane saturation field below 50 Oe. Please clarify why the fit windows start so far above saturation, and whether the intercept definition is sensitive to the choice of window.
  4. [Fe5GeTe2 section] The explanation for why φ = 0° gives no observed signal while φ = 90° gives a clear hysteresis loop is not given in the main text; please add a brief symmetry argument there rather than only in the supplementary material.
  5. [Discussion of Sagnac interferometry] The sentence 'the three-order improvement in measurement accuracy provided by the Sagnac MOKE' is vague; please specify the reference accuracy (e.g., 10^-6 rad for conventional MOKE versus 10^-9 rad for Sagnac) so the reader can evaluate the claim.
  6. [Extended Fig. 6b] The caption contains a typo: 'detected by an a (A)' should read 'detected by an analyzer (A)'. Please also verify that all extended figure callouts in the text correspond to the correct figures.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Orthogonal MOKE signal is a real experimental observation, but its interpretation as a Berry-curvature octupole effect is imported from a same-author preprint (ref. 17), and the angular fits reduce to the assumed expansion Eq. (1); no magnitude is predicted.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Main text, theoretical section leading to Eq. (1)]
    "Following the theoretical work [17], we apply the multipolar expansion to Q in magnetization M space, which can be simplified in the cubic lattice as follows: Qi = αmi + βm3 i + · · ·, (1) considering the symmetry operations of cubic lattice."

    The paper's theoretical conclusion—that an in-plane M generates a Voigt vector component perpendicular to M, enabling normal-incidence MOKE—rests entirely on the βm_i^3 term in Eq. (1). This expansion is not derived here from a microscopic Hamiltonian or band-structure calculation; it is taken from ref. 17, a companion preprint whose author list overlaps with the present paper (Z. Liu, D. Hou, Y. Gao, Q. Niu). The αm term alone gives Q ∥ M, so for a (111) surface the orthogonal signal exists only if β is nonzero. Since β is neither computed nor independently measured, the theory is an input adopted by citation, and the observed effect is re-described using that input rather than predicted from first principles.

  2. self citation load bearing [Introductory generality argument, before 'In this work, we demonstrate...']
    "Crucially, if the Voigt vector indeed reflects the multipolar structure of Berry curvature in magnetization space, which is argued by our theory to be ubiquitously present in ferromagnets [17], the orthogonal MOKE geometry should not be limited to specific systems."

    The statement that the multipole structure is 'ubiquitously present in ferromagnets' and hence that orthogonal MOKE should apply broadly is justified only by the authors' own theory, ref. 17. No independent calculation, external measurement, or machine-checked result is cited for this ubiquity. This self-citation is load-bearing because it underlies the paper's generalization from Tb:BIG, Ni, and Fe5GeTe2 to ferromagnets in general. Without ref. 17, the symmetry-based Eq. (1) is a plausible ansatz but not an established result.

2 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Tb:BIG experimental results, discussion of Fig. 2e]
    "The values of θA k at different φ, shown in Fig. 2e, are accurately fitted with the function a · sin(3φ), which is exactly the (111)-face contributions of octupole, 32-pole and 128-pole according to Eq. 1, as detailed in Section II of the supplementary material."

    The sin(3φ) functional form is not an independent prediction: it is generated by the βm_i^3 term in the assumed Eq. (1) for a (111) cubic surface. The fitted amplitude a is a free parameter extracted from the same data shown in Fig. 2e; no magnitude of the orthogonal Kerr signal is derived from the Berry-curvature multipole theory. Calling this fit 'exactly the (111)-face contributions of octupole, 32-pole and 128-pole' and using it to confirm the multipole origin is circular in the sense that the data are fitted with a function constructed from the ansatz and then cited as confirmation of the ansatz. The agreement tests only the symmetry class of the assumed expansion, not the microscopic origin or the value of β.

  2. uniqueness imported from authors [Fe5GeTe2 results section, exclusivity conclusion]
    "Given the symmetry breaking in Fe5GeTe2, the M-dipole contribution is shown to be incapable of generating the orthogonal MOKE, as elaborated in Section III of the supplementary material. Therefore, the detected signal must originate exclusively from the M-multipole of Berry curvature."

    The 'therefore' asserts uniqueness of the Berry-curvature-multipole origin. But the M-multipole framework itself is imported from ref. 17, a preprint by largely the same authors, and the supplementary symmetry argument only rules out the M-dipole within that framework. It does not independently establish that the remaining signal must be a Berry-curvature multipole rather than any other nonlinear magneto-optical tensor contribution. Thus the exclusivity is a conclusion drawn inside the self-cited framework, not an externally verified result.

full rationale

The experimental backbone of the paper is not circular: the authors observe a clear M-odd Kerr rotation and ellipticity under normal incidence with in-plane magnetization in three materials, with control measurements (e.g., 180-degree rotation in Fe5GeTe2) ruling out longitudinal leakage. That is an independent empirical result. The circularity lies in the theoretical interpretation. The central claim that the effect is 'enabled by the multipolar structure of Berry curvature' rests on Eq. (1), which is adopted from ref. 17, a companion preprint by largely the same authors, and the βm_i^3 coefficient is not computed from a microscopic model. The 3-fold and cos3ψ angular dependences fitted in Figs. 2e and 3c are mathematical consequences of the same assumed expansion, with the amplitude as a free parameter; they therefore confirm the symmetry of the ansatz but not the Berry-curvature origin or a predicted magnitude. The 'broad applicability' generalization is likewise supported by a self-citation. Score 5 reflects that the measured effect is real and self-contained, while the central theoretical attribution is not independently derived.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central theoretical explanation relies on a symmetry-allowed expansion of the Voigt vector (imported from a self-cited preprint) and a conceptual link to Berry curvature multipoles that is not derived from a microscopic model. The experimental observation is independent of this framework, but the quantitative content of the theory is limited to a fitted amplitude.

free parameters (1)
  • Amplitude of angular fit (a in a sin(3φ) / a cos(3ψ)) = For Tb:BIG: θ_A^K = 67.2 µrad, ε_A^K = 52.4 µrad at φ=0; for Ni, not quoted explicitly
    The threefold angular dependence is fitted with a sinusoid; the prefactor is determined by the data, not predicted by the symmetry analysis.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Voigt vector Q as a function of magnetization direction m can be expanded as Q_i = α m_i + β m_i^3 + ... in cubic symmetry (Eq. 1).
    This expansion is taken from ref 17 by the same group and assumed valid here; no microscopic derivation is given in this paper.
  • domain assumption The observed Kerr signal originates solely from the magneto-optical Voigt vector and is not contaminated by other polarization effects or sample misalignment.
    Standard assumption in MOKE; the paper includes some controls (normal incidence alignment and 180-degree rotation tests) but cannot fully exclude all artifacts.
  • ad hoc to paper The multipolar structure of Berry curvature in magnetization space controls the Voigt vector at optical frequencies.
    The paper argues this connection conceptually but does not compute Q from Berry curvature; it is the central interpretive step linking the symmetry expansion to band-structure topology.
invented entities (1)
  • Magnetization multipole of Berry curvature (M-multipole)
    purpose: Provides a theoretical framework to explain the misalignment between the Voigt vector and magnetization, enabling orthogonal MOKE.
    The multipole is inferred from the symmetry of the observed angular dependence; the paper does not provide a separate experimental handle that isolates the Berry curvature origin from a generic symmetry expansion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Orthogonal Geometry of Magneto-Optical Kerr Effect Enabled by Magnetization Multipole of Berry Curvature." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y2A6VJO4

@misc{pith2026241209857,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Orthogonal Geometry of Magneto-Optical Kerr Effect Enabled by Magnetization Multipole of Berry Curvature},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y2A6VJO4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09857}
}
read the original abstract

The Magneto-Optical Kerr Effect (MOKE) is a fundamental tool in magnetometry, pivotal for advancing research in optics, magnetism, and spintronics as a direct probe of magnetization. Traditional MOKE measurements primarily detect the magnetization components parallel to the Poynting vector, which can only access the magnitude but not the direction of the orthogonal component. In this study, we introduce an orthogonal MOKE geometry in which the Kerr signal detects both the magnitude and direction of the magnetization component perpendicular to the Poynting vector. We demonstrate the broad applicability of this orthogonal geometry through the MOKE measurements in cubic ferromagnets and van der Waals ferromagnet. We theoretically show that the orthogonal MOKE geometry is enabled by the multipolar structure of Berry curvature in the magnetization space, which generally induces a Voigt vector orthogonal to the magnetization, thereby accounting for the unique magnetization angle dependence distinct from conventional MOKE. The establishment of the orthogonal MOKE geometry not only introduces a new paradigm for magneto-optical measurements but also provides a framework for exploring the magnetization multipoles of Berry curvature across the electromagnetic spectrum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09857 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Geometries of magneto-optical Kerr effect (MOKE). a-c, Schematic diagrams illustrating the three different MOKE geometries. Green and gray arrows represent the magne￾tization (M) of material and the induced Voigt vector (Q). The perpendicular component of Q relative to M, denoted as Q⊥, is highlighted by a red arrow. The incident lights (light red lines) are linearly polarized in the direction indicated by black arr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MOKE signal of a Tb2.22Bi0.78Fe5O12 (Tb:BIG) in orthogonal geometry. a, Schematic diagram of the orthogonal MOKE measurement setup for a Tb:BIG(111) film, which is rotated in xy plane by an angle φ. The magnetic field (H) is applied along x direction. A 447-nm laser beam with linear polarization (Ei) along y axis is normally incident to the surface of the Tb:BIG sample. The Kerr rotation (θk) and Kerr ellipticity (ε… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. MOKE signal of nickel in orthogonal geometry. a,, Schematic diagram of the orthogonal MOKE measurement in a 87nm-thick Ni(111) film on MgO(111) substrate. The magnetic field is applied in the sample plane at an angle ψ relative to the [11¯2] direction of Ni. A 447-nm laser beam with linear polarization (Ei) along [¯110] is normally incident to the sample surface. The Kerr rotation (θk) of the reflected light is meas… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: MOKE signal of Fe5GeTe2 in orthogonal geometry. a, Atomic structure of Fe5GeTe2 projected along c axis, showing a 3-fold symmetry. b, Optical image of the Fe5GeTe2 sample. The Kerr rotation of the marked area on the sample is measured by Kerr microscopy with normally i…

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

  1. Cubic-in-magnetization contributions to the magneto-optic Kerr effect investigated for Ni(001) and Ni(111) thin films

    physics.optics 2026-03 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Cubic-in-magnetization MOKE is described by a two-parameter tensor H and measured in Ni(111) as a pronounced three-fold angular anisotropy, while (001) films should show weaker four-fold signals.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Z. Q. Qiu, S. D. Bader, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 71, 1243 (2000)

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Schouhamer Immink, J

    K. Schouhamer Immink, J. Braat, J. Audio Eng. Soc. 32 (1984)

    work page 1984

  3. [3]

    Jenkins, et al., Microsyst

    D. Jenkins, et al., Microsyst. Technol. 10, 66 (2003)

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    Kerr, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Sci- ence 3, 321 (1877)

    J. Kerr, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Sci- ence 3, 321 (1877)

    work page

  5. [5]

    Kerr, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Sci- ence 5, 161 (1878)

    J. Kerr, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Sci- ence 5, 161 (1878)

    work page

  6. [6]

    C. A. Fowler, E. M. Fryer, Phys. Rev. 94, 52 (1954)

    work page 1954

  7. [7]

    Freiser, IEEE Trans

    M. Freiser, IEEE Trans. Magn. 4, 152 (1968)

    work page 1968

  8. [8]

    J. Zak, E. Moog, C. Liu, S. Bader, J. Magn. Magn. Mater .89, 107 (1990)

    work page 1990

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    A. K. Zvezdin, V . A. Kotov, Modern magnetooptics and magnetooptical materials (CRC Press, 1997)

    1997

  2. [10]

    Nagaosa, J

    N. Nagaosa, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 75, 042001 (2006). 12

    2006

  3. [11]

    Nagaosa, J

    N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. MacDonald, N. P. Ong, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1539 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    Hou, et al., Phys

    D. Hou, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 217203 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    A. V . Petukhov, A. Kirilyuk, T. Rasing,Phys. Rev. B 59, 4211 (1999)

    1999

  6. [14]

    Hamrle, et al., Phys

    J. Hamrle, et al., Phys. Rev. B 67, 155411 (2003)

    2003

  7. [15]

    Wang, et al., Phys

    L. Wang, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 106601 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Peng, et al., arXiv:2402.15741 (2024)

    W. Peng, et al., arXiv:2402.15741 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Z. Liu, M. Wei, D. Hou, Y . Gao, Q. Niu,arXiv:2408.08810 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Ma, et al., Nature 565, 337 (2019)

    Q. Ma, et al., Nature 565, 337 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Sodemann, L

    I. Sodemann, L. Fu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 216806 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Q. Ma, A. G. Grushin, K. S. Burch, Nat. Mater .20, 1601 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Yao,et al., Phys

    Y . Yao,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 037204 (2004)

    2004

  14. [22]

    Xu, Physics 17, 38 (2024)

    S.-Y . Xu, Physics 17, 38 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Y . Yang, T. Liu, L. Bi, L. Deng,J. Alloys Compd. 860, 158235 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Zhang, et al., J

    L. Zhang, et al., J. Adv. Ceram. 12, 873 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    E. Moog, S. Bader, Superlattices Microstruct. 1, 543 (1985)

    1985

  18. [26]

    Buschow, P

    K. Buschow, P. van Engen, R. Jongebreur, J. Magn. Magn. Mater .38, 1 (1983)

    1983

  19. [27]

    Gaerner, R

    M. Gaerner, R. Silber, T. Peters, J. Hamrle, T. Kuschel,Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 024066 (2024). 13

    2024

  20. [28]

    Gong, et al., Nature 546, 265 (2017)

    C. Gong, et al., Nature 546, 265 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Huang, et al., Nature 546, 270 (2017)

    B. Huang, et al., Nature 546, 270 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Fei, et al., Nat

    Z. Fei, et al., Nat. Mater .17, 778 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    A. F. May, et al., ACS Nano 13, 4436 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Bedoya-Pinto, et al., Science 374, 616 (2021)

    A. Bedoya-Pinto, et al., Science 374, 616 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Li, et al., Nat

    X. Li, et al., Nat. Phys. 20, 1145 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    H. Pan, Z. Liu, D. Hou, Y . Gao, Q. Niu,Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L012034 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Postava, et al., J

    K. Postava, et al., J. Magn. Magn. Mater .172, 199 (1997)

    1997

  28. [36]

    D. A. Allwood, et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 92, 072503 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    Alahmed, et al., 2D Mater .8, 045030 (2021)

    L. Alahmed, et al., 2D Mater .8, 045030 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Wen,et al., Nano Lett

    Y . Wen,et al., Nano Lett. 20, 3130 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Sun, et al., Nano Res

    X. Sun, et al., Nano Res. 13, 3358 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Liu, et al., Science 336, 555 (2012)

    L. Liu, et al., Science 336, 555 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    Yamanouchi, D

    M. Yamanouchi, D. Chiba, F. Matsukura, T. Dietl, H. Ohno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 096601 (2006)

    2006

  34. [42]

    J. Xia, Y . Maeno, P. T. Beyersdorf, M. M. Fejer, A. Kapitulnik,Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 167002 (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    Sinova, S

    J. Sinova, S. O. Valenzuela, J. Wunderlich, C. H. Back, T. Jungwirth, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1213 (2015). 14

    2015

  36. [44]

    Choi, et al., Nature 619, 52 (2023)

    Y .-G. Choi, et al., Nature 619, 52 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    C. L. Hogan, The Bell System Technical Journal 31, 1 (1952)

    1952

  38. [46]

    Walowski, M

    J. Walowski, M. M ¨unzenberg, J. Appl. Phys. 120, 140901 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    P. N. Argyres, Phys. Rev. 97, 334 (1955)

    1955

  40. [48]

    Sandstr ¨om, E

    P. Sandstr ¨om, E. B. Svedberg, J. Birch, J.-E. Sundgren, MRS Online Proceedings Library 528, 209 (1998). 15 Acknowledgments: The author acknowledges Timo Kuschel for valuable discussion. This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program under grant Nos. 2022YFA1403502, ...

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.