Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Towards Advanced Chiral Sensors: Enhanced Helicity-Dependent Photocurrent in Ultrathin Topological Insulator Films

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ultrathin topological insulator films could detect chirality below 1 percent.

desk verdict Promising roadmap for TI chiral sensors, but the missing equations and single-angle calibration make the headline numbers unverifiable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12040 v1 pith:3ER3FSQN submitted 2024-11-18 cond-mat.mes-hall

Mohammad Shafiei , Sahar Safavi Moayeri , Milorad V. Milošević This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords chiralitysensinghelicity-dependentphotocurrentcircularphotogalvaniceffecttopologicalinsulatorfilmsBi2Se3hybridizationgapstrainengineeringbackgating
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 argues that topological insulator films only a few atomic quintuple layers thick can serve as compact optical chirality detectors with sensitivity surpassing current devices. It shows that the helicity-dependent photocurrent (HDPC), the signal tied to the handedness of light, is strongest at a thickness of three quintuple layers and can be amplified further by focusing the laser, using light just above the hybridization gap, applying compressive biaxial strain, and back gating. It also identifies a bias-free way to separate the wanted circular photogalvanic current from competing linear photogalvanic and photon-drag currents, using the even parity of the photon-drag term under reversal of the incidence angle. If the calculations are right, the combined improvements bring chiral sensitivity below 1 percent, beating the roughly 5.6 percent reported for earlier TI transistor detectors and the roughly 3 percent of metamaterial-based detectors.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the phenomenological decomposition of the transverse photocurrent, $j_y = C \sin 2\alpha + L_1 \sin 4\alpha + L_2 \cos 4\alpha + D$, where $\alpha$ is the waveplate-controlled polarization angle; $C$ is the desired helicity-dependent current, $L_1$ and $L_2$ are linear photogalvanic and photon-drag terms, and $D$ is a polarization-independent background. The key symmetry move is that the $L_2$ (linear photon-drag) term is even under reversal of the incidence angle $\theta$, so subtracting measurements at $\theta$ and $-\theta$ removes it without applying a bias voltage. The thickness, strain, and gating effects act through the hybridization gap and the inversion symmetry of ultrathin films, which control the density of states near the Dirac point and the optical selection rules.

What would settle it

Measure the helicity-dependent photocurrent under identical illumination on identically prepared 3 QL and 10 QL films: the paper predicts more than an order-of-magnitude increase for the 3 QL film, so a measured ratio near unity would falsify the thickness-enhancement claim; separately, measuring the photon-drag term at $\theta$ and $-\theta$ in a 3 QL film tests the even-parity cancellation, and a first-principles evaluation of the CPGE coefficient at 3 QL would replace the unprinted Eq. (2) as a direct check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the circular photogalvanic, helicity-dependent photocurrent in Bi2Se3-family topological insulator films is strongly amplified when the film is thinned to a few quintuple layers, reaching a maximum at 3 QL, and can be boosted by more than an order of magnitude relative to a 10 nm film. Further enhancement comes from reducing the irradiated area, tuning the frequency, angle, intensity, and delay time of the incident light, applying compressive biaxial strain, and using a back gate; gating a 2 QL film breaks its inversion symmetry and produces a nonzero HDPC above about 35 meV. With the linear photon-drag contribution removed by measuring at opposite tilt angles, the authors conclude that chiral sensitivity below 1 percent is within reach.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the photocurrent coefficients calibrated on a 10-nm film at one incidence angle remain quantitatively valid for films a few quintuple layers thick under strain and gating, and that the unprinted CPGE formula (Eq. 2) still applies there; if this extrapolation fails, the predicted order-of-magnitude enhancement and sub-1 percent sensitivity collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single compact device, without the bias-voltage sequence used in earlier TI chirality detectors, can isolate the helicity-dependent signal by measuring at two opposite tilt angles.
  • Chiral sensitivity below 1 percent would make TI-based detectors more sensitive than reported metamaterial (about 3 percent) and earlier TI transistor (about 5.6 percent) approaches.
  • The 3 QL thickness is the sweet spot for ungated films, while a 2 QL film becomes usable as a chirality sensor only when a gate voltage above about 35 meV breaks its inversion symmetry.
  • Compressive biaxial strain and back gating provide independent tuning knobs that can be combined with illumination optimization for a given film.
  • Delay times must stay below roughly 100 ps to avoid photothermoelectric currents, which constrains the measurement window.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's explicit claims, the even-parity cancellation of the photon-drag term might generalize to other chiral materials with $C_{3v}$ surface states, extending the bias-free isolation scheme beyond the Bi2Se3 family.
  • The predicted sub-1 percent sensitivity rests on the linear photogalvanic current continuing to drop with thickness as it did from 20 QL to 10 QL; a direct measurement of $L_1$ at 3 QL would test that extrapolation.
  • Because Eq. (2), the CPGE expression, is not printed in the manuscript, a first-principles calculation of the CPGE coefficient in the ultrathin regime is needed before the claimed enhancement can be treated as more than an extrapolation.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes strategies to enhance the helicity-dependent photocurrent (HDPC) in topological insulator (TI) films for optical chirality sensing. It decomposes the measured photocurrent into circular photogalvanic, linear photogalvanic, and linear photon-drag contributions and claims that the linear photon-drag term can be isolated by measuring at opposite tilt angles. The authors then predict that thinning the TI film to a few quintuple layers, reducing the irradiated area, tuning the incident light, applying compressive biaxial strain, and back gating can each increase the HDPC, with a combined chiral sensitivity below 1%.

Significance. If the central quantitative claims were fully supported, the paper would offer a useful roadmap for compact, high-sensitivity chirality detectors based on TI films, and the symmetry-based cancellation of the linear photon-drag contribution via θ and −θ measurements is a practically valuable idea. The paper also makes good use of existing experimental data from Refs. [13,14] and of known hybridization gaps from Ref. [37]. However, the current manuscript does not make the underlying model verifiable: the central equations for the CPGE and the strain tensor are missing, and the quantitative predictions rest on coefficients calibrated at a single angle for a 10 nm film and then extrapolated without justification. As presented, the significance cannot be assessed reliably.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methodological backbone, Eq. (2)] The central expression for the CPGE current is absent: the sentence introducing Eq. (2) is followed by a blank, so the equation that underlies all subsequent quantitative claims cannot be checked. Because Eq. (2) is used to compute the currents in Figs. 4-7 and to support the sub-1% sensitivity claim, please provide the full expression, define every symbol (including nω and Y_CPGE), and state explicitly how film thickness, strain, and gate voltage enter the calculation.
  2. [Straintronic enhancement, Eq. (5)] The strain tensor and the definition of the in-plane biaxial strain ϵ∥ are both missing from the text: the sentence introducing Eq. (5) is followed by no formula, and the definition of ϵ∥ is likewise blank. Without these expressions and without the relation between strain and the hybridization gap used in the calculation, the strain-enhancement results in Fig. 6 cannot be reproduced or evaluated. Please include the explicit formulas and the numerical values of all strain-dependent parameters.
  3. [Methodological backbone, Fig. 3 and subsequent extrapolation] The coefficients Y_CPGE, Y_LPGE, and Y_LPDE are fixed by matching experimental data from Ref. [14] at a single angle (θ = −30°) for a ~10 nm film, and the same coefficients are then used to compute currents for 2-5 QL films under strain and gating. Fitting at one angle does not by itself invalidate the angular dependence shown in Fig. 3, but the thickness, strain, and gate extrapolation is not justified: over this thickness range the hybridization gap changes from 252 to 41 meV (Ref. [37]), which alters the density of states and optical selection rules. Please provide a thickness-dependent model or explicit evidence that these coefficients remain unchanged, and include a sensitivity analysis with respect to their values.
  4. [Ultrathin TI films, Figs. 4-7 and chiral sensitivity claim] The main quantitative predictions are presented as curves without the underlying computational model, a complete list of parameter values, or error bars. For example, Fig. 4(b) lists only θ, ω, A0, and τ and not the model that produces the thickness dependence, while Figs. 5-7 do not state all parameters used. Likewise, the statement that 'chiral sensitivity of below 1% is within reach' is not derived: the text combines calculations of the circular response with experimental data for the linear response without giving the defining formula for the chiral sensitivity or any uncertainty propagation. Please specify the equations, all parameter values, and the definition and numerical estimate of the chiral sensitivity.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Introduction and Ultrathin TI films] The text states that the TI sensitivity of 5.6% is 'slightly lower' than the metamaterial value of ~3%, but numerically 5.6% > 3%; the Introduction correctly uses the same comparison to argue that TI detectors are less sensitive. Please correct this inconsistency.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'bulk y and involuted' appears to be a typo; it should likely read 'bulky and involved' or similar.
  3. [Fig. 4(b) caption] The caption states that reducing the irradiated area from 2.25 µm² to 0.25 µm² adds an order of magnitude to the signal, but the figure does not show the area or current units clearly; please label the axes and color scale so this claim can be read directly from the figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No equation-level circularity: the model is calibrated at one angle and then extrapolated, with key governing equations omitted, which limits verifiability but does not make the predictions equivalent to their inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a calibrated model rather than a closed-form first-principles derivation. Coefficients Y_CPGE, Y_LPGE, and Y_LPDE are fixed to match experiment at a single angle (θ = −30°) from Ref. [14], and the theoretical curves in Fig. 3 are then shown against the same experimental dataset. This means the agreement at the calibration point is by construction, but the full angular dependence remains a non-trivial functional prediction, so it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The central claims—order-of-magnitude enhancement in ultrathin films and sub-1% chiral sensitivity—are extrapolations of this calibrated model to thicknesses, strains, and gate voltages. Critically, the governing equations are missing: Eq. (2) (CPGE expression) and Eq. (5) (strain tensor) are blank in the manuscript, so the thickness, strain, and gate calculations cannot be independently checked. However, no passage exhibits a specific reduction in which an output quantity equals an input by definition or in which a fitted parameter is directly relabeled as a predicted result. The strain and gate sections rely on the authors' prior work (Ref. [38]), but that is a separate externally published paper, and the present text does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or adopt an ansatz via an unverified self-citation. The numerical inconsistency where 5.6% is called 'slightly lower' than 3% is a correctness issue, not circularity. Overall, the predictions are not forced by the inputs in the strict sense required to score above 2; the appropriate concern is reproducibility and transparency, which is captured by a score of 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculations borrow a fitted phenomenological decomposition and a set of material parameters from prior experiments, then extrapolate to thickness, strain, and gate regimes without showing the underlying model equations. No genuinely new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Y_CPGE, Y_LPGE, Y_LPDE magnitudes = not stated; fixed to match experiment at theta = -30 degrees
    These coefficients set the scale of the CPGE, LPGE, and LPDE curves in Fig. 3, and are used in all subsequent predictions.
  • Eq. (1) coefficients C, L1, L2, D = C = -28.5, L1 = 21.1, L2 = 14.8, D = 13.2 nA
    Taken from fitting experimental data in Ref. [13]; used to reproduce Fig. 2(b) and define the photocurrent components.
  • Hybridization gap values for 2-5 QL films = 252, 138, 70, and 41 meV
    Empirical inputs from Ref. [37], used to set the lower frequency bound in Fig. 5(a).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The total y-polarized photocurrent obeys jy = C sin2a + L1 sin4a + L2 cos4a + D under QWP rotation.
    Invoked at Eq. (1) and throughout; this decomposition is taken from prior experiments and theory, not derived here.
  • domain assumption LPGE and LPDE follow j_LPGE proportional to sin(theta) sin(4a) and j_LPDE proportional to sin^2(theta) cos(theta) cos(4a).
    Eqs. (3)-(4), cited to Refs. [14,20,30].
  • domain assumption CPGE in the surface states is described by Eq. (2), which is missing from the submitted text, and vanishes at normal incidence.
    The central formula for HDPC is not displayed; the text references Refs. [28,29].
  • domain assumption Ultrathin films with N_QL > 2 break inversion symmetry, while a 2 QL film retains it, and gating can break it.
    Used to explain thickness dependence in Fig. 4 and gate effects in Fig. 7; based on experimental reports [36,37] and the authors' calculations.
  • domain assumption Bulk contributions are suppressed in ultrathin films, so surface-state photocurrent formulas remain valid.
    Core to the claim that HDPC improves in ultrathin films; no quantitative derivation of the suppression is given in this paper.
  • domain assumption Compressive biaxial strain monotonically increases the hybridization gap and modifies optical selection rules in the way assumed in Fig. 6.
    The strain dependence is asserted via Refs. [38,40-43]; the numerical strain curves are shown but the underlying model is not given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Advanced Chiral Sensors: Enhanced Helicity-Dependent Photocurrent in Ultrathin Topological Insulator Films." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3ER3FSQN

@misc{pith2026241112040,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Advanced Chiral Sensors: Enhanced Helicity-Dependent Photocurrent in Ultrathin Topological Insulator Films},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3ER3FSQN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12040}
}
read the original abstract

Chirality, a fundamental property of asymmetric structures, plays a crucial role in pharmaceutical, biological and chemical systems, offering a powerful tool for screening organic compounds. While the conventional optical chirality detectors are often bulky and involuted, the topological insulators (TIs) offer a promising platform for developing compact yet sensitive devices - owing to their inherent chirality. However, the complex interplay of photoresponses in TIs can limit the ultimate accuracy of chirality detection. Therefore, we here analyze the underlying mechanisms governing the photoresponses in TIs and reveal strategies to enhance the helicity-dependent photocurrent (HDPC). By attentively analyzing the symmetries and behavior of competing photoresponses, we show that it is possible to effectively eliminate unwanted contributions and isolate the HDPC. Moreover, we reveal that HDPC is strongly amplified in ultrathin TI films, and can be further enhanced by optimizing the illumination parameters, sensor strain and/or back gating. Our findings thereby provide a roadmap for design and optimization of miniaturized, high-performance TI chirality detectors, with potential to revolutionize chiral analysis in biomedical and material sciences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12040 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic representation of chirality, highlighting its biomedical effects and applications. A chiral system exhibits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Schematic representation of the setup to detect the photocurrent generated by circularly polarized light under ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Tilt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) The temporal dynamics of ultrafast light [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Dependence of the circular photogalvanic current ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Calculated HDPC in strained ultrathin TI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Gate voltage dependence of the circular photogalvanic current in ultrathin TI films. (a) Variation of circular respon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

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. Light-induced dissipationless states in magnetic topological insulators with hexagonal warping

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In magnetically doped topological insulators with hexagonal warping, high-frequency linearly polarized light can restore near-quantized conductance by suppressing magnetic-impurity backscattering.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [37]

    Zhang, K

    Y. Zhang, K. He, C.-Z. Chang, C.-L. Song, L.-L. Wang, X. Chen, J.-F. Jia, Z. Fang, X. Dai, W.-Y. Shan, et al., Nature Physics 6, 584 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [14]

    S. Chen, J. Yu, X. Hong, K. Zhu, Y. Chen, S. Cheng, Y. Lai, K. He, and Q. Xue, Photonics Research 11, 1902 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [1]

    Noyori, Angewandte Chemie International Edition 41, 2008 (2002)

    R. Noyori, Angewandte Chemie International Edition 41, 2008 (2002)

    work page 2002

  4. [2]

    E. Zor, I. H. Patir, H. Bingol, and M. Ersoz, Biosensors and Bioelectronics 42, 321 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [3]

    Torsi, G

    L. Torsi, G. M. Farinola, F. Marinelli, M. C. Tanese, O. H. Omar, L. Valli, F. Babudri, F. Palmisano, P. G. Zambonin, and F. Naso, Nature materials 7, 412 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [4]

    E. Zor, H. Bingol, and M. Ersoz, TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 121, 115662 (2019). [5] G. Palyi, Biological chirality (Academic Press, 2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    W. Wang, C. Hao, M. Sun, L. Xu, X. Wu, C. Xu, and H. Kuang, Advanced Functional Materials 28, 1805112 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [7]

    R. Gao, L. Xu, M. Sun, M. Xu, C. Hao, X. Guo, F. M. Colombari, X. Zheng, P. Král, A. F. de Moura, et al., Nature Catalysis 5, 694 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    B. Chen, L. Song, Y. Yuan, X. Liu, Z. Guo, Y. Gu, Z. Lou, Y. Liu, C. Zhang, C. Li, et al., ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 15, 651 (2023)

    2023

  2. [9]

    Rahman, W

    M. Rahman, W. H. Almalki, O. Afzal, A. S. A. Altamimi, S. N. M. N. Ullah, M. A. Barkat, and S. Beg, Drug Discovery Today 28, 103420 (2023)

    2023

  3. [10]

    L. Guo, Y. Guo, R. Wang, J. Feng, N. Shao, X. Zhou, and Y. Zhou, Molecules 28, 5629 (2023)

    2023

  4. [11]

    Z. Li, Z. Mo, S. Meng, H. Gao, X. Niu, and R. Guo, Analytical Methods 8, 8134 (2016)

    2016

  5. [12]

    Duan, C.-X

    H.-J. Duan, C.-X. Yang, and X.-P. Yan, RSC Advances 5, 30577 (2015)

    2015

  6. [13]

    Huang and X

    S. Huang and X. Xu, Advanced Optical Materials 9, 2002210 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Reviews of modern physics 82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    J. Tian, I. Miotkowski, S. Hong, and Y. P. Chen, Scientific reports 5, 14293 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    McIver, D

    J. McIver, D. Hsieh, H. Steinberg, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and N. Gedik, Nature nanotechnology 7, 96 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    Chiou, S

    T.-H. Chiou, S. Kleinlogel, T. Cronin, R. Caldwell, B. Loeffler, A. Siddiqi, A. Goldizen, and J. Marshall, Current Biology 18, 429 (2008)

    2008

  11. [19]

    Khan and E

    E. Khan and E. E. Narimanov, Physical Review B 100, 081408 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Plank, L

    H. Plank, L. Golub, S. Bauer, V. Bel’Kov, T. Herrmann, P. Olbrich, M. Eschbach, L. Plucinski, C. Schneider, J. Kampmeier, et al., Physical Review B 93, 125434 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Shalygin, H

    V. Shalygin, H. Diehl, C. Hoffmann, S. Danilov, T. Herrle, S. A. Tarasenko, D. Schuh, C. Gerl, W. Wegscheider, W. Prettl, et al., JETP letters 84, 570 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    Basiri, X

    A. Basiri, X. Chen, J. Bai, P. Amrollahi, J. Carpenter, Z. Holman, C. Wang, and Y. Yao, Light: Science & Applications 8, 78 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Corbae, S

    P. Corbae, S. Ciocys, D. Varjas, E. Kennedy, S. Zeltmann, M. Molina -Ruiz, S. M. Griffin, C. Jozwiak, Z. Chen, L. -W. Wang, et al., Nature Materials 22, 200 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    J. E. Moore, Nature 464, 194 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Hosur, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 83, 035309 (2011)

    P. Hosur, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 83, 035309 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    Kastl, C

    C. Kastl, C. Karnetzky, H. Karl, and A. W. Holleitner, Nature communications 6, 6617 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Yan, Z.-M

    Y. Yan, Z.-M. Liao, X. Ke, G. Van Tendeloo, Q. Wang, D. Sun, W. Yao, S. Zhou, L. Zhang, H.-C. Wu, et al., Nano letters 14, 4389 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Pan, Q.-Z

    Y. Pan, Q.-Z. Wang, A. L. Yeats, T. Pillsbury, T. C. Flanagan, A. Richardella, H. Zhang, D. D. Awschalom, C.-X. Liu, and N. Samarth, Nature communications 8, 1037 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    S. D. Ganichev and W. Prettl, Journal of physics: Condensed matter 15, R935 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Weber, L

    W. Weber, L. Golub, S. Danilov, J. Karch, C. Reitmaier, B. Wittmann, V. Bel’kov, E. Ivchenko, Z. Kvon, N. Vinh, et al., Physical Review B— Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 77, 245304 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    J. Yu, K. Zhu, X. Zeng, L. Chen, Y. Chen, Y. Liu, C. Yin, S. Cheng, Y. Lai, J. Huang, et al., Physical Review B 100, 235108 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Kiemle, P

    J. Kiemle, P. Zimmermann, A. W. Holleitner, and C. Kastl, Nanophotonics 9, 2693 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Danishevskii, A

    A. Danishevskii, A. Kastalskii, S. Ryvkin, and I. Yaroshetskii, Sov. Phys. JETP 31, 292 (1970)

    1970

  26. [34]

    Zhang, C.-X

    H. Zhang, C.-X. Liu, X.-L. Qi, X. Dai, Z. Fang, and S.-C. Zhang, Nature physics 5, 438 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Zhang, H

    G. Zhang, H. Qin, J. Teng, J. Guo, Q. Guo, X. Dai, Z. Fang, and K. Wu, Applied Physics Letters 95 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    H. Peng, K. Lai, D. Kong, S. Meister, Y. Chen, X.-L. Qi, S.-C. Zhang, Z.-X. Shen, and Y. Cui, Nature materials 9, 225 (2010)

    2010

  29. [38]

    Shafiei, F

    M. Shafiei, F. Fazileh, F. M. Peeters, and M. V. Milošević, Physical Review B 106, 035119 (2022)

    2022

  30. [39]

    Q. S. Wu, S. N. Zhang, Z. Fang, and X. Dai, Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures 44, 895 (2012)

    2012

  31. [40]

    Battilomo, N

    R. Battilomo, N. Scopigno, and C. Ortix, Physical Review B 100, 115131 (2019)

    2019

  32. [41]

    Y. Liu, Y. Li, S. Rajput, D. Gilks, L. Lari, P. Galindo, M. Weinert, V. Lazarov, and L. Li, Nature Physics 10, 294 (2014)

    2014

  33. [42]

    X. Gao, M. Zhou, Y. Cheng, and G. Ji, Philosophical Magazine 96, 208 (2016)

    2016

  34. [43]

    Aramberri and M

    H. Aramberri and M. C. Muñoz, Physical Review B 95, 205422 (2017)

    2017

  35. [44]

    Huang, Y

    Y. Huang, Y. Song, S. Wang, I. Buyanova, and W. Chen, Nature Communications 8, 15401 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.