Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Signatures for half-metallicity and nontrivial surface states in a Kagome-lattice magnetic Weyl semimetal Co$_3$Sn$_2$S$_2$

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Scanning tunneling spectroscopy of the magnetic Weyl semimetal candidate Co3Sn2S2 finds a ~300 meV minority-spin gap and attributes 50 meV standing waves to nontrivial surface states.

desk verdict The spin-resolved STS evidence for half-metallicity is solid, but the Fermi-arc surface-state claim rests on a selective comparison the authors themselves admit deviates considerably. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08568 v1 pith:VO2E5TX2 submitted 2019-08-22 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Lin Jiao , Qiunan Xu , Yeryun Cheon , Yan Sun , Claudia Felser , Enke Liu , Steffen Wirth This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall
keywords magneticWeylsemimetalCo3Sn2S2Kagomelatticehalf-metallicityspin-resolvedscanningtunnelingmicroscopyFermiarcsurfacestatesstandingwavesanomalousHalleffect
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 sets out to show, with low-temperature scanning tunneling microscopy and spectroscopy, that the Kagome-lattice ferromagnet Co3Sn2S2 carries the electronic-structure signatures expected of a magnetic Weyl semimetal. The authors identify the surface terminations exposed by cleaving, measure a partially open gap near 300 meV in the local density of states, and use spin-resolved tunneling with a chromium-coated tip to show that this gap sits in the minority-spin channel, confirming half-metallicity. They also find an extra hump in the density of states near 50 meV, the energy where earlier calculations place Weyl nodes, and observe standing waves near step edges with a dispersion they attribute to scattering between nontrivial surface states. The payoff, if the interpretation is right, is a concrete material in which broken time-reversal symmetry, a gapped spin channel, and topological surface states coexist and can be probed locally.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Co3Sn2S2, a Kagome-lattice ferromagnet predicted to be a half-metallic magnetic Weyl semimetal: in the majority-spin channel, nodal rings gapped by spin-orbit coupling leave three pairs of Weyl nodes about 50–60 meV above the charge neutrality point, while the minority-spin channel is gapped at the Fermi level. The measurement machinery is scanning tunneling spectroscopy: normal tungsten tips give the local density of states, chromium-coated antiferromagnetic tips give spin-resolved spectra, and step edges act as scattering centers that produce Friedel oscillations. The comparison quantities that carry the argument are the effective spin polarization of the tunnel junction versus the calculated band spin polarization, and the measured scattering wavevector versus the calculated scattering paths between adjacent nontrivial surface states.

What would settle it

A momentum-resolved photoemission map of the (001) surface at about 50 meV would settle the claim: if the constant-energy contours do not show non-closed Fermi arcs connecting the projected Weyl points, then the signature the paper assigns to nontrivial surface states is something else.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that the bulk and surface electronic structure of Co3Sn2S2, as calculated, shows up in tunneling spectra point by point. On S-terminated surfaces the dI/dV curves display a partially opened gap of roughly 300 meV, with additional peaks that match the projected density of states; the Kagome-lattice surface shows the same features with a reduced gap near 250 meV. Spin-resolved spectra taken at ±3 T with an antiferromagnetic Cr tip show the gap in one spin channel and a V-shaped metallic density of states in the other, and the extracted junction spin polarization tracks the calculated spin polarization for a tip polarization near 55%. Around 50 meV, where the projected bulk density of states is featureless, the measured LDOS shows a hump; the authors propose it comes from nontrivial (Fermi-arc) surface states, and they support this with standing-wave oscillations between 10 and 80 meV near step edges whose scattering wavevectors have similar behavior to calculated scattering paths between nontrivial surface states, though with considerable deviation.

Load-bearing premise

The claim stands or falls on the interpretation that the ~50 meV hump and the step-edge standing waves come from nontrivial surface states rather than from trivial surface states or bulk interference; the paper itself notes a considerable deviation between the measured dispersion and the calculated scattering paths.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Co3Sn2S2 can be treated as a half-metallic ferromagnet around the Fermi level, so the spin-polarized transport and the observed anomalous Hall effect have a microscopic origin in the majority-spin channel.
  • Because the Weyl nodes sit only 50–60 meV above the charge neutrality point, transport signatures such as negative magnetoresistance from the chiral anomaly should appear at relatively accessible doping or bias energies.
  • The proposed Fermi-arc surface states near 50 meV can be localized with STM, making step edges and defects usable local probes of topological surface bands in magnetic Weyl systems.
  • The Kagome lattice in this material hosts both flat-band and Dirac physics and, if this paper is right, magnetic Weyl fermions as well.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, a momentum-resolved photoemission experiment in the same 50 meV window could directly image the Fermi arcs and confirm or refute the surface-state assignment proposed here.
  • Beyond the paper, repeating the standing-wave analysis on step edges along several crystallographic directions, and in magnetic fields that shift the Weyl nodes, would test whether the measured scattering wavevectors track the nontrivial surface-state bands.
  • Beyond the paper, if the half-metallic gap is robust, Co3Sn2S2 becomes a natural testbed for combining topological surface-state transport with spin-polarized bulk conduction, possibly enabling spin injection and detection in a single material.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a low-temperature (T = 2 K) scanning tunneling microscopy and spectroscopy study of the magnetic Weyl semimetal candidate Co3Sn2S2. The authors assign the observed cleaved surfaces to S-, Sn-, and Co3Sn-terminations on the basis of morphology and comparison of dI/dV spectra with calculated density of states, and they identify a partially opened gap of ~300 meV in the tunneling spectra. Using an antiferromagnetic Cr-coated tip at magnetic fields of ±3 T, they observe field-dependent spin-resolved tunneling spectra and interpret the ~300 meV gap as the gap in the spin-minority channel, i.e., half-metallicity; a quantitative comparison between the measured effective spin polarization Pse and the calculated polarization Psc is presented, using a tip polarization of S = 55%. The paper's third claim is that a ~50 meV hump in the LDOS and standing waves observed near step edges in the bias range 10-80 mV are signatures of nontrivial surface states (Fermi arc-like states) of the Weyl semimetal, supported by comparing the extracted scattering wavevector qs(V) with selected calculated scattering paths. The authors hedge the surface-state assignment qualitatively ('we temporally propose', 'there is considerable deviation'), but the abstract states that the standing waves 'confirmed' the surface-state signature, which overstates the evidence presented.

Significance. The principal strength of this manuscript is the direct spin-resolved tunneling study: the ±3 T field-dependent dI/dV data with an antiferromagnetic Cr-coated tip (Fig. 4(a)), the reproducibility check in Fig. S3, and the agreement of the minority-spin gap with DFT calculations constitute credible spectroscopic evidence for the half-metallic band structure of Co3Sn2S2, complementing transport and photoemission studies of this material. The surface-termination assignments (Figs. 2-3) are careful, and the authors are commendably explicit about where their evidence falls short. If the surface-state interpretation were secured, this would be an important first STM signature of Fermi-arc surface states in a time-reversal-symmetry-breaking magnetic Weyl semimetal, in a competitive and active field (cf. contemporaneous Refs. [25,26]). As it stands, the Fermi-arc claim rests on two observations, each with admitted or plausible alternative explanations (a bulk or trivial-surface origin of the 50 meV hump; trivial-surface or bulk-interference standing waves), so this part of the paper currently contributes a proposed signature rather than a demonstration.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.A, Fig. 2(d)] The identification of the ~50 meV LDOS hump with nontrivial (Fermi arc) surface states is load-bearing for the paper's second central claim, but the text itself confines this to a temporary proposal ('Consequently, we temporally propose that the Fermi arcs induce the additional hump'). Because the slab and bulk calculations are 'relatively featureless' in this energy range, the hump is assigned purely by energy coincidence with the predicted Weyl-node energy and by its sensitivity to defects (Fig. S2); neither property is specific to Fermi arcs, as trivial surface states and defect-sensitive bulk resonances would behave similarly. Since this same hump defines the energy window in which the Section III.C standing waves are analyzed, the surface-state conclusion is not independent of this assignment. Please strengthen this point with spatial dI/dV maps of the hump, a quantitative comparison of the measured hump with the computed surface-projected DOS, or an explicit downgrade of the claim; as written, the hump alone does not discriminate Fermi-arc states from other surface or bulk features.
  2. [Section III.C, Figs. 5(d)-(f)] The standing-wave analysis is the second pillar of the surface-state claim and, as the paper acknowledges, it is not yet conclusive. A single qs(V) curve extracted from one 1D line scan is compared to a few selected calculated scattering paths (e.g., the black arrow in Fig. 5(f)); the manuscript states that 'there is considerable deviation' between the measured and calculated dispersions and that 'a much intensive calculation is required.' The trivial surface-state bands (red in Figs. 5(e,f)) are dismissed because they merge into bulk states, but a 1D line scan sums over all scattering channels and cannot exclude trivial-surface or bulk-interference origins. With several cuts and several candidate bands available in Fig. 5(e), selecting paths after the fact is a curve-selection exercise rather than a falsifiable test. I request one of the following: (i) standing-wave dispersion measured at additional step edges with known crystallographic orientation, to verify that the q(V) anisotropy matches the calculated scattering path; (ii) a comparison of qs(V) with all candidate scattering vectors (nontrivial, trivial, and bulk) for the relevant cuts; or (iii) a revision of the conclusion and the abstract so that the standing waves are described as consistent with, rather than a confirmation of, Fermi-arc surface states.
  3. [Section III.B, Fig. 4(d)] The quantitative agreement between Pse and Psc is presented with a fitted parameter. The text states 'Taking S = 55%, Pse fits Psc,' so the tip polarization ratio S is adjusted, and since Pse scales inversely with S (see the unnumbered equation defining Pse, which is missing from the displayed text), the amplitude of Pse is matched by construction; the zero-crossing positions of Pse are independent of S, which gives the comparison some content, but the 'fits nicely' claim overstates the test. The raw spin-resolved dI/dV curves in Fig. 4(a) independently support the minority-spin gap, so the qualitative half-metallicity conclusion is not in question. I ask that the missing equation be restored, that Pse be shown for a range of S values (e.g., 40%-70%) with the calculated Psc for comparison, and that an independent calibration of the Cr-tip polarization be reported if available; otherwise the text should describe the comparison as consistency within the assumed S value rather than as a two-sided confirmation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] 'This is further confirmed by the observations of standing waves' overstates Section III.C, which reports 'considerable deviation' between the measured and calculated dispersions; please replace 'confirmed' with a weaker verb such as 'corroborated' or qualify the statement.
  2. [Section III.A] 'Figures 2b and 2c show typical topographies of Co3Sn2S2 for the thick plate-type sample and thin flake-type sample, respectively' is inconsistent with the Fig. 2 caption, which identifies Fig. 2(c) as a height profile; the flake-type topography appears in Fig. 3(b), so the cross-references should be corrected.
  3. [Section III.A (termination discussion)] The conflicting termination assignments between Ref. [25] and Ref. [26] for the same surface are noted only implicitly; since the termination identification underlies the later surface-state analysis, a sentence explicitly reconciling the assignment criteria of the two references would strengthen the argument.
  4. [Section III.C] The residual LDOS definition Delta(dI/dV)(r,V) = HL[dI/dV(r,V), omega] - (1/n) sum_r HL[...] should state the type and cutoff frequency omega of the low-pass filter and should specify which curves enter the average; the text refers to 'the total number of the averaged curves' without defining the set.
  5. [References] Reference [25] is an arXiv preprint; if the published version is now available, please update the citation and any statements that depend on it.
  6. [Introduction and Abstract] 'Type-IA half-metallic ferromagnetism' is an unusual term; please define or rephrase it, and consider replacing 'semimetal gap' in the Abstract with a term that distinguishes the partially opened minority-spin gap from a conventional semimetal gap.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Half-metallicity evidence is partly independent; only the Pse/Psc comparison is a fitted-parameter confirmation, and the Fermi-arc interpretation is tentative.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III.B (Half metallicity), Fig. 4(d) and the paragraph defining Pse/Psc]
    "Theoretically, the spin polarization of the sample can be derived by Psc= (DOS↑-DOS↓)/(DOS↑ +DOS↓), where ↑ and ↓ denote the majority - and minority-spin components. Taking S = 55%, Pse fits Psc in Fig. 4(d)."

    Pse is the effective spin polarization of the tip-sample junction and depends on the tip polarization S. S=55% is chosen so that Pse matches the calculated Psc; the paper then cites 'the similarity between Pse and Psc' as confirmation of the half-metallic nature. To the extent that the agreement is produced by the choice of S, this confirmation step is partly circular. The core half-metallicity claim does not reduce to this fit: the raw spin-resolved dI/dV data show a ~300 meV minority-spin gap and a V-shaped majority DOS at opposite field directions, and S=55% is said to be comparable to a previous report, so the fit is constrained rather than arbitrary. This is a partial fitted-input issue, not a complete reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central half-metallicity claim is grounded in direct spin-resolved STS: the minority channel shows a gap near EF while the majority channel shows a V-shaped DOS, in line with the bulk DFT bands. This is independent evidence and does not require circularity. The only explicit reduction is the Pse/Psc comparison in Section III.B, where the tip polarization S=55% is selected to make the experimental Pse match the calculated Psc; the similarity is then used as confirmation. This is a fitted-parameter confirmation, but the raw gap observation and the external plausibility of S limit its severity. The nontrivial-surface-state claim is weaker but not circular: the ~50 mV hump is assigned because it coincides with the predicted Fermi-arc energy from Refs [20-22] (same group's DFT, but independent of the STM data), and the standing-wave analysis compares q_s(V) with one selected calculated scattering path, with the paper itself conceding 'considerable deviation' and that 'a much intensive calculation is required.' That is an acknowledged limitation of evidence quality, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs. Accordingly, no self-citation chain or uniqueness theorem forces the conclusion; score 3.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central interpretation depends on the same group's DFT prediction of Weyl nodes and surface states (Refs [20-22]), on the assumed properties of the Cr-coated tip, and on a low-pass filtering procedure to isolate standing waves. The only explicit numerical fit is the tip polarization S=55%.

free parameters (1)
  • Spin polarization ratio S of Cr-coated tip = 55%
    In Section B, the text says 'Taking S = 55%, Pse fits Psc in Fig. 4(d).' The agreement between experimental and calculated polarization depends on this fitted value, which is taken from a prior report rather than independently measured here.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption DFT band structure of Co3Sn2S2 from Refs [20-22] correctly places Weyl nodes at 50-60 meV above charge neutrality and predicts Fermi arc surface states.
    The paper uses this calculation to assign the 50 mV hump in LDOS to nontrivial surface states (Sections A and C).
  • domain assumption The antiferromagnetic Cr-coated tip provides spin-polarized tunneling with spin orientation fixed by the tip's antiferromagnetic order, independent of external field.
    Section B relies on this to interpret the field-dependent dI/dV as a spin-valve effect between tip and sample.
  • domain assumption Low-pass filtering of the line-scanned LDOS removes lattice-induced oscillations and reveals standing waves due to surface states.
    Section C defines delta dI/dV with a low-pass filter; the extracted standing-wave peaks are the basis for the surface-state dispersion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Signatures for half-metallicity and nontrivial surface states in a Kagome-lattice magnetic Weyl semimetal Co$_3$Sn$_2$S$_2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VO2E5TX2

@misc{pith2026190808568,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Signatures for half-metallicity and nontrivial surface states in a Kagome-lattice magnetic Weyl semimetal Co$_3$Sn$_2$S$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VO2E5TX2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08568}
}
abstract

Weyl semimetals with time reversal symmetry breaking are expected to show various fascinating physical behaviors, such as intrinsic giant anomalous Hall effect, chiral anomaly effect in the bulks, and Fermi arcs on the surfaces. Here we report a scanning tunneling microscopy study on the magnetic Weyl semimetal candidate Co$_3$Sn$_2$S$_2$. According to the morphology and local density of states of the surface, we provide assignments to different surface terminations. The measured local density of states reveals a semimetal gap of ~300 mV, which is further verified as the gap in spin-minority bands using spin-resolved tunneling spectra. Additionally, signature for the nontrivial surface states around 50 mV is proposed. This is further confirmed by the observations of standing waves around a step-edge of the sample. Our observations and their comparison with band structure calculations provide direct yet timely evidence for the bulk and surface band structures of the magnetic Weyl semimetal Co$_3$Sn$_2$S$_2$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hasan and C.L

    M.Z. Hasan and C.L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 3045-3067 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Qi and S

    X. Qi and S. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 1057-1110 (2011)

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Wan, A.M

    X. Wan, A.M. Turner, A. Vishwanath, and S.Y. Savrasov, Phys. Rev. B83, 205101 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Balents, Physics4, 36 (2011)

    L. Balents, Physics4, 36 (2011). 12

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    G. Xu, H. Weng, Z. Wang, X. Dai, and Z. Fang, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 186806 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    S.Y. Xu, I. Belopolski, N. Alidoust, M. Neupane, G. Bian, C. Zhang, R. Sankar, G. Chang, Z. Yuan, C. Lee, S. Huang, H. Zheng, J. Ma, D. S. Sanchez, B. Wang, A. Bansil, F. Chou, P. P. Shibayev, H. Lin, S. Jia, and M. Z. Hasan,Science349, 613-617 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    B.Q.Lv, H. M. Weng, B. B. Fu, X. P. Wang, H. Miao, J. Ma, P. Richard, X. C. Huang, L. X. Zhao, G. F. Chen, Z. Fang, X. Dai, T. Qian, and H. Ding,Phys. Rev. X5, 031013 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    See e.g. M.Z. Hasan, S. Xu, I. Belopolski, and S. Huang, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.8, 289-309 (2017) and reference therein

    work page 2017

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Suzuki, R

    T.Suzuki, T. Suzuki, R. Chisnell, A. Devarakonda, Y. -T. Liu, W. Feng, D. Xiao, J. W. Lynn & J. G. Checkelsky,Nat. Phys.12, 1119 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Nakatsuji, N

    S. Nakatsuji, N. Kiyohara, and T. Higo, Nature527, 212 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Nielsen and M

    H. Nielsen and M. Ninomiya, Phys. Lett. B130, 389 (1983)

    1983

  4. [12]

    Son and B.Z

    D.T. Son and B.Z. Spivak, Phys. Rev. B88, 104412 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Huang, L

    X. Huang, L. Zhao, Y. Long, P. Wang, D. Chen, Z. Yang, H. Liang, M.Xue, H. Weng, Z. Fang, X. Dai, and G. Chen, Phys. Rev. X 5, 31023 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    J.Gooth, A. C. Niemann, T. Meng, A. G. Grushin, K. Landsteiner, B.Gotsmann, F. Menges, M. Schmidt, C .Shekhar, V . Süß, R .Hühne, B .Rellinghaus, C . Felser, B . Yan, and K.Nielsch,Nature547, 324 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    A.Lee, K

    C.-K.Chan, P. A.Lee, K. S. Burch, J. H. Han, and Y . Ran, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 026805 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Tokura, M

    Y. Tokura, M. Kawasaki, and N. Nagaosa, Nat. Phys. 13, 1056–1068 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    C. Y . Guo, F. Wu, Z. Z. Wu, M. Smidman, C. Cao, A. Bostwick, C. Jozwiak, E. Rotenberg, Y . Liu, F. Steglich & H. Q. Yuan,Nat. Commun. 9, 4622 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Z. Wang, M. G. Vergniory, S. Kushwaha, M . Hirschberger, E. V . Chulkov, A. Ernst, N. P. Ong, Robert,J. Cava, and B. A.Bernevig,Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 236401 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Sakai, Y

    A. Sakai, Y . P.Mizuta, A . A. Nugroho, R .Sihombing, T .Koretsune, M . -T. Suzuki, N.Takemori, R . Ishii, D .Nishio-Hamane, R .Arita, P .Goswami, and S.Nakatsuji,Nat. Phys.14, 1119-1124 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    E. Liu, Y. Sun, N. Kumar, L.Muechler, A. Sun, L. Jiao, S. -Y. Yang, D. Liu, A. Liang, Q. Xu, J.Kroder, V. Süß, H. Borrmann, C.Shekhar, Z. Wang, C. Xi, W. Wang, W. Schnelle, S. Wirth, Y. Chen, S. T. B. Goennenwein, and C. Felser,Nat. Phys.14, 1125-1131 (2018). 13 [21]Q. Xu, E. ...

    2018

  13. [22]

    Q. Wang, Y. Xu, R. Lou, Z. Liu, M. Li, Y. Huang, D. Shen, H. Weng, S. Wang, and H. Lei,Nat. Commun. 9, 3681 (2018)

    2018

  14. [23]

    See Supplemental Material for detailed description of the methods and the data

  15. [24]

    Fernández, M

    J. Fernández, M. Moro-Lagares, D. Serrate, and A. A. Aligia, Phys. Rev. B 94, 75408 (2016)

    2016

  16. [25]

    Morali, R

    N. Morali, R. Batabyal, P. K. Nag, E.K. Liu, Q. N. Xu, Y . Sun, B. H. Yan, C. Felser, N. Avraham, H. Beidenkopf, arXiv: 1903.00509

    1903 arXiv

  17. [26]

    J.X. Yin, S. S. Zhang, G. Q. Chang, Q. Wang, S. S. Tsirkin, Z. Guguchia, B. Lian, H. B. Zhou, K. Jiang, I. Belopolski, N. Shumiya, D. Multer, M. Litskevich, T. A. Cochran, H. Lin, Z. Q. Wang, T. Neupert, S. Jia, H. C. Lei, and M. Z.Hasan, Nat. Phys. (2019) https://www.nature.c...

    2019

  18. [27]

    Zabel, Z

    R.Weihrich, I.Anusca, and M. Zabel, Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. 631, 1463–1470 (2005)

    2005

  19. [28]

    Schnelle, A

    W. Schnelle, A. Leithe-Jasper, H. Rosner, F. M. Schappacher, R. Pöttgen, F. Pielnhofer, and R. Weihrich, Phys. Rev. B 88, 144404 (2013)

    2013

  20. [29]

    Y . S. Dedkov, M. Holder, S. L. Molodtsov, and H. Rosner, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 100, 072011 (2008)

    2008

  21. [30]

    Holder, Yu

    M. Holder, Yu. S. Dedkov, A. Kade, H. Rosner, W. Schnelle, A. Leithe-Jasper, R. Weihrich, and S. L. Molodtsov, Phys. Rev. B 79, 205116 (2009)

    2009

  22. [31]

    R.Wiesendanger, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1495-1550 (2009)

    2009

  23. [32]

    H. Oka, O. O. Brovko, M.Corbetta, V. S. Stepanyuk, D. Sander, and J. Kirschner,Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 1127 (2014)

    2014

  24. [33]

    Detailed information of the Cr-coated tip is available from NaugaNeedles LLC: http://nauganeedles.com/products-USSTM-W500-Cr

  25. [34]

    M.Bode, M.Getzlaff, andR.Wiesendanger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4256-4259 (1998)

    1998

  26. [35]

    Nahas, F

    M.Corbetta, S.Ouazi, J.Borme, Y. Nahas, F. Donati, H. Oka, S. Wedekind, D. Sander, and J. Kirschner, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.51, 30208 (2012)

    2012

  27. [36]

    Wiesendanger, D

    R. Wiesendanger, D. Bürgler, G. Tarrach, A. Wadas, D. Brodbeck, and H. -J. Güntherodt,J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 9, 519 (1991)

    1991

  28. [37]

    J.Friedel, Philos. Mag. 43, 153-189 (1952). 14

    1952

  29. [38]

    M.F.Crommie, C.P.Lutz, andD.M.Eigler, Nature 363, 524 (1993)

    1993

  30. [39]

    L.Jiao, Q.N.Xu,Y.P.Qi,S.C.Wu, Y.Sun, C.Felser,and S.Wirth,Phys. Rev. B 97, 195137 (2018)

    2018

  31. [40]

    M.X. Fu, T. Imai, T.-H. Han, and Y .S. Lee, Science350, 6261 (2015)

    2015

  32. [41]

    Guo and M

    H.-M. Guo and M. Franz, Phys. Rev. B80, 113102 (2009)

    2009

  33. [42]

    G. Xu, B. Lian, and S.C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 186802 (2015)

    2015

  34. [43]

    L.Ye, M. Kang, J. Liu, F. von Cube, C . R. Wicker, T. Suzuki, C.Jozwiak, A.Bostwick, E. Rotenberg, D. C. Bell, L. Fu, R.Comin, and J. G. Checkelsky, Nature 555, 638–642 (2018)

    2018

  35. [44]

    Muechler, E

    L. Muechler, E. K. Liu, Q. Xu, C. Felser, and Y. Sun, arXiv:1712.08115

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.