Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 73 references

Emergent superconductivity and non-reciprocal transport in a van der Waals Dirac semimetal/antiferromagnet heterostructure

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Interface of two nonsuperconductors superconducts at 10 K.

desk verdict Clean MBE study of a new ZrTe2/FeTe platform with genuine 2D superconductivity and strong diode response, but the interface attribution is a hypothesis that needs a bare-FeTe control before the abstract's claims are warranted. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20393 v4 pith:2XRAQCKH submitted 2025-04-29 cond-mat.supr-con

Saurav Islam , Max Stanley , Anthony Richardella , Seungjun Lee , Kalana D. Halanayake , Sandra Santhosh , Danielle Reifsnyder Hickey , Tony Low
show 1 more author
Nitin Samarth
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords vanderWaalsheterostructuresDiracsemimetalinterfacesuperconductivityFeTeZrTe2magneto-chiralanisotropysuperconductingdiodeeffectBerezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thoulesstransition
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 reports that growing the Dirac semimetal ZrTe2 directly on the antiferromagnet FeTe produces a superconducting state at their shared interface, even though neither material superconducts on its own in this form. Electrical transport shows two-dimensional superconductivity below $T_c\sim10$ K, with a Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless transition at 9.6 K and a coherence length near 2 nm. In the transition region the device conducts differently for opposite current directions, giving a magneto-chiral anisotropy comparable to topological insulator hybrids, and a one-monolayer ferromagnetic CrTe2 cap triples that effect. Below $T_c$, the critical current depends on current direction strongly enough that the structure acts as a superconducting diode with 29% efficiency. The authors propose this as an epitaxial van der Waals platform for coupling Dirac fermion topology with superconductivity and magnetism.

What carries the argument

The central object is the epitaxial ZrTe2/FeTe van der Waals interface, where the superconducting condensate is claimed to reside. The argument is carried by three quantitative tools: the Halperin-Nelson and Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless analysis of resistance and current-voltage characteristics, which fixes the two-dimensional nature and transition temperature; the upper critical field fits of Eqs. (1) and (2), which yield $\xi_0=1.9$ nm and $d_{sc}=12.9$ nm; and second-harmonic transport, which extracts the magneto-chiral coefficient $\gamma$ from $R_{2\omega}/R_{\omega}$ versus magnetic field. Mechanistically, the paper proposes that ZrTe2 overgrowth removes Fe interstitials from the FeTe surface and transfers holes into FeTe, restoring superconductivity at the interface while leaving the bicollinear antiferromagnetic order intact.

What would settle it

A cross-sectional scanning tunneling microscopy study across the ZrTe2/FeTe interface would settle the mechanism: if the superconducting gap appears in FeTe regions far from the interface, or if the interface region shows no local removal of iron interstitials, then the proposed interface-induced superconductivity is wrong. Measuring the upper critical field of bare FeTe films grown under the same conditions would also test whether the superconductivity is intrinsic to FeTe.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that emergent two-dimensional superconductivity appears at the ZrTe2/FeTe interface below $T_c\sim10$ K and coexists with the bicollinear antiferromagnetic order of FeTe. The authors infer the two-dimensional character from a Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless fit to the resistance and from the current-voltage exponent reaching $\alpha=3$ at $T_{BKT}=9.6$ K, with upper critical field fits giving $\xi_0=1.9$ nm and a superconducting thickness $d_{sc}=12.9$ nm. They further report that the superconducting state supports non-reciprocal transport: a magneto-chiral anisotropy comparable to that seen in topological insulator/FeTe hybrids, enhanced threefold by a CrTe2 ferromagnetic cap, and a superconducting diode efficiency of 29%. The proposed mechanism is that ZrTe2 overgrowth removes interstitial Fe from FeTe near the interface, restoring superconductivity locally while first-principles calculations show hole doping that stabilizes the bicollinear antiferromagnetic phase.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the superconducting state is created at the ZrTe2/FeTe interface when the ZrTe2 layer strips away excess iron atoms from the FeTe surface; the paper's own conclusion notes that whether ZrTe2's Dirac electrons actually enter the superconducting state is still an open question, so if the superconductivity turns out to be a bulk FeTe property the central platform claim is weakened.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Below $T_c\sim10$ K the heterostructure carries supercurrent in a two-dimensional sheet with a BKT transition at 9.6 K, so the superconducting state is confined near the interface.
  • The upper critical field exceeds 14 T in both orientations and extrapolates to roughly twice the Pauli limit, a result the paper links to strong spin-orbit interaction, spin-triplet pairing, or a Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov state.
  • Magneto-chiral anisotropy appears in a Dirac semimetal with spin-degenerate bulk Dirac bands, showing that helical surface states are not required for non-reciprocal transport.
  • A monolayer ferromagnetic cap triples the magneto-chiral anisotropy even though it sits about 4 nm from the superconducting interface, a result the paper attributes tentatively to broken time-reversal symmetry.
  • The 29% diode efficiency places this van der Waals stack among the most efficient superconducting diodes reported.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if interfacial charge transfer is the control knob, tuning the thickness or work function of the telluride cap should systematically shift $T_c$ and the diode efficiency; a scan across several cap materials would test this without changing the FeTe itself.
  • Editorial inference: the threefold enhancement from a ferromagnet placed about 4 nm away suggests the non-reciprocal response is not a simple exchange proximity effect; interposing nonmagnetic spacers of increasing thickness would locate the coupling range.
  • Editorial inference: the authors leave open whether ZrTe2 Dirac fermions remain gapless in the superconducting state; if they do, tunneling spectroscopy into the ZrTe2 surface could search for the bulk point nodes and surface Majorana modes predicted for superconducting Dirac semimetals.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports molecular beam epitaxy growth and characterization of ZrTe2/FeTe heterostructures on SrTiO3, showing a superconducting transition around 10 K in transport measurements. The authors analyze the upper critical field anisotropy, BKT behavior, and non-reciprocal transport (magneto-chiral anisotropy and superconducting diode effect with 29% efficiency). They claim that 2D superconductivity emerges at the interface of two non-superconducting van der Waals materials, ZrTe2 and FeTe, and propose this as a platform for coupling Dirac fermions with superconductivity and magnetism.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the work would provide an epitaxial vdW platform combining a Dirac semimetal, an antiferromagnet, and a ferromagnetic cap, with interesting non-reciprocal transport and a high diode efficiency. The transport data are analyzed with standard tools (BCS Hc2 fits, BKT scaling, second-harmonic measurements), and the structural characterization (RHEED, STEM, EDX, XRD, ARPES) is thorough. However, the manuscript's own text labels the interface location of the superconductivity as a hypothesis, and the absence of a bare FeTe control sample means the central claim is not yet supported beyond reasonable doubt.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and text after Fig. 2(a)] The abstract states that '2D superconductivity arises at the heterointerface' and characterizes ZrTe2 and FeTe as 'two non-superconducting van der Waals materials,' but the text later hypothesizes that as-grown FeTe films have Fe interstitials and that superconductivity occurs only near the interface where these are removed during ZrTe2 overgrowth (text after Fig. 2(a): 'we hypothesize...'). The manuscript further cites ref [37] showing that defect-free FeTe is intrinsically superconducting. No bare FeTe control sample is shown, so the data cannot distinguish interface superconductivity from superconductivity in a FeTe layer whose defects are healed by overgrowth. This is load-bearing for the paper's central novelty claim; please revise the abstract and conclusion to match the level of support, or provide a control experiment.
  2. [Upper critical field analysis, Eqs. (1)-(2), Fig. 3(a)] The extracted superconducting thickness d_sc = 12.9 nm is larger than the ZrTe2 thickness of the 6 UC sample (~4 nm) and smaller than the 35 UC FeTe layer (~35 nm). The homogeneous 2D model used in Eqs. (1)-(2) assumes a single superconducting layer; the fitted d_sc therefore does not uniquely place the condensate at the ZrTe2/FeTe interface. Please discuss how the model applies to a bilayer and whether d_sc can be interpreted only as an effective parameter.
  3. [BKT analysis, Fig. 3(b)-(d)] The BKT analysis (Halperin-Nelson fit, power-law IVC with alpha=3 at 9.5 K) supports two-dimensional superconductivity, but two-dimensional behavior would also result from a thin superconducting FeTe layer at the interface or in the FeTe film. The BKT evidence therefore does not resolve which layer hosts the condensate. This is a logical gap in the argument for interface superconductivity.
  4. [Non-reciprocal transport, Fig. 4(c)-(d)] The manuscript interprets the magneto-chiral anisotropy as arising from the Dirac semimetal ZrTe2 and uses this to argue that helical spin-momentum locking is not essential. However, if the superconductivity resides in FeTe (as the proposed healing mechanism suggests), the non-reciprocal transport may originate at the FeTe interface rather than from the ZrTe2 Dirac bands. The conclusion that the DSM band structure influences the MChA requires either direct evidence from ZrTe2 or a more careful disentangling of the two layers.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract, BKT section, Conclusion] The reported critical temperature is inconsistent: the abstract states Tc ~ 10 K, the BKT analysis gives T_BKT = 9.6 K, and the conclusion states 'a critical temperature of 12 K.' Please unify the definition and values.
  2. [References] The supplemental material reference [42] is a placeholder ('INSERT_URL_HERE'); please update before publication.
  3. [Fig. 2(a)] The resistance is normalized by the 300 K value, but the text defines Tc relative to the 30 K value; please clarify the normalization convention.
  4. [Text near Fig. 2(a)] The phrase 'N´ eel temperature' contains a stray accent; please check for similar encoding issues throughout.
  5. [Eq. (3)] The description of the second harmonic measurement would benefit from a precise statement of the sign convention and the relative orientation of current and magnetic field, as the expression for R_2ω depends on the geometry.
  6. [Text after Eq. (2)] The term 'superconducting length' might be better rendered as 'effective superconducting thickness' to avoid confusion with a coherence length.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Self-citation carries the interface-attribution premise, but the measured superconducting and diode results are independent.

  1. self citation load bearing [Introduction, third paragraph and Fig. 2(a) discussion]
    "Until very recently, the prevailing view considered FeTe as an antiferromagnet (AFM) in its stoichiometric phase, making a transition to a superconducting phase only for non-stoichiometric conditions or under pressure; however, defect-free FeTe has recently been shown to be intrinsically superconducting [37]."

    The abstract's central characterization of the heterostructure as comprising two non-superconducting materials, and the claim that superconductivity emerges at the FeTe/ZrTe2 interface, rely on the premise that as-grown FeTe is non-superconducting because of Fe interstitials. The only cited support for the alternative premise, that defect-free FeTe is intrinsically superconducting and that capping removes interstitials, is reference [37], an overlapping-author preprint. The paper then states: 'we hypothesize that our as-grown FeTe films likely have Fe intersitials...

full rationale

The measured transport results, including the superconducting transition near 10 K, upper-critical-field fits, BKT analysis with alpha = 3, magneto-chiral anisotropy, and 29% diode efficiency, are direct experimental observations analyzed with standard models. Those fits do not encode the conclusion by construction. The DFT section is also independent, as it addresses charge transfer and magnetic-phase stability rather than fitting the superconducting transition. However, the specific claim that superconductivity is an interface-emergent effect in ZrTe2/FeTe, rather than a property of FeTe healed by the ZrTe2 overgrowth, is not established by the data shown and leans on the overlapping-author preprint [37]. The paper itself flags this as a hypothesis and states that proving it requires additional measurements. This makes the central interface-attribution premise partly self-citation load-bearing, though the core transport phenomenology remains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rely on model assumptions (BKT, BCS critical-field fits, and the interface-origin hypothesis) and on an unpublished result from overlapping authors. No new fundamental entity is introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • T_c definition (resistance criterion) = ~10 K (50% of R(T=30 K))
    Transition temperature is defined by a hand-chosen 50% criterion; abstract says 10 K, conclusion says 12 K.
  • Coherence length xi_0 = 1.9 nm
    From fit of perpendicular Hc2 data to Eq. (1).
  • Superconducting thickness d_sc = 12.9 nm
    From fit of parallel Hc2 data to Eq. (2); value suggests the superconducting region may extend beyond the ZrTe2 layer.
  • T_BKT = 9.6 K
    From Halperin-Nelson fit to R(T) and independently from IV exponent alpha=3 at T=9.5 K.
  • Halperin-Nelson constants R0, b = not disclosed
    Material-specific fit constants in R(T) = R0 exp(-b/(T-T_BKT)^1/2); values not given.
  • Gamma divergence prefactor = not disclosed
    Magneto-chiral coefficient gamma fit to (T-T_BKT)^(-3/2) in the intermediate region; prefactor not reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The superconducting state is two-dimensional and obeys the BKT/Halperin-Nelson description.
    Invoked to fit R(T) and IVC (Fig. 3); this is a standard model but its applicability is assumed.
  • domain assumption The weak-coupling BCS formulas for Hc2 (Eqs. 1 and 2) apply with a single coherence length and thickness.
    Used to extract xi_0 and d_sc from critical field data; no microscopic justification for FeTe/ZrTe2 beyond prior FeTe hybrid studies.
  • ad hoc to paper Superconductivity is located at the ZrTe2/FeTe interface and results from removal of Fe interstitials in FeTe during ZrTe2 overgrowth.
    Explicitly called a hypothesis ('we hypothesize...') in the text and relies on the overlapping-author preprint [37]; no direct spatial evidence.
  • domain assumption The as-grown FeTe films are antiferromagnetic with Fe interstitials, and the resistance peak near 60 K is the Neel transition.
    Interpretation of the R(T) peak; consistent with prior literature but not directly proven for these films.
  • domain assumption The second-harmonic response equals the magneto-chiral anisotropy term in Eq. (3) with no other contributions.
    Gamma extraction assumes ideal in-plane geometry and no other 2-omega contributions; no control measurements shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergent superconductivity and non-reciprocal transport in a van der Waals Dirac semimetal/antiferromagnet heterostructure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2XRAQCKH

@misc{pith2026250420393,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergent superconductivity and non-reciprocal transport in a van der Waals Dirac semimetal/antiferromagnet heterostructure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2XRAQCKH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20393}
}
abstract

We investigate emergent superconductivity and non-reciprocal transport (magnetochiral anisotropy, superconducting diode effect) at the heterointerface of two non-superconducting van der Waals (vdW) materials, the Dirac semimetal ZrTe$_2$ and the antiferromagnetic iron chalcogenide FeTe, grown using molecular beam epitaxy. We show from electrical transport measurements that two-dimensional (2D) superconductivity arises at the heterointerface below a critical temperature $T_c \sim 10$~K. In the superconducting transition region, non-reciprocal transport, characterized by the magneto-chiral anisotropy, exhibits a magnitude comparable to that observed in topological insulators, and is enhanced by a factor of three when the heterostructure is capped with a 2D vdW ferromagnet (CrTe$_2$). Below $T_c$, the superconducting diode effect exhibits an efficiency of 29\%. With strong spin-orbit coupling in ZrTe$_2$, these epitaxial heterostructures provide an attractive epitaxial vdW platform for exploring unconventional superconductivity in Dirac semimetals and for developing non-reciprocal devices for superconducting electronics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20393 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Crystal structure of ZrTe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Electrical transport properties: (a) Longitudinal resistance normalized by 300 K magnitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Two-dimensional superconductivity: (a) Upper critical magnetic field ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Non-reciprocal charge transport: (a) Schematic of the second harmonic resistance mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    Z.-J. Yan, Z. Wang, B. Xia, S. Paolini, Y.-T. Chan, N. Dihingia, H. Rong, P. Xiao, K. D. Halanayake, J. Song,et al., arXiv:2603.16115 (2026). 11

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  2. [1]

    Fu and C

    L. Fu and C. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 096407 (2008)

    2008

  3. [2]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 1057 (2011). 9

    work page 2011

  4. [3]

    Bednik, A

    G. Bednik, A. Zyuzin, and A. Burkov, Phys. Rev. B92, 035153 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [4]

    Kobayashi and M

    S. Kobayashi and M. Sato, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 187001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    Armitage, E

    N. Armitage, E. Mele, and A. Vishwanath, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015001 (2018)

    2018

  7. [6]

    A. A. Burkov, Nat. Mater.15, 1145 (2016)

    2016

  8. [7]

    Borisenko, Q

    S. Borisenko, Q. Gibson, D. Evtushinsky, V. Zabolotnyy, B. B¨ uchner, and R. J. Cava, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 027603 (2014)

    2014

Show all 73 references
  1. [8]

    Yan and C

    B. Yan and C. Felser, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.8, 337 (2017)

    2017

  2. [9]

    Ong and S

    N. Ong and S. Liang, Nat. Rev. Phys.3, 394 (2021)

    2021

  3. [10]

    Xiong, S

    J. Xiong, S. K. Kushwaha, T. Liang, J. W. Krizan, M. Hirschberger, W. Wang, R. J. Cava, and N. P. Ong, Science350, 413 (2015)

    2015

  4. [11]

    Shekhar, A

    C. Shekhar, A. K. Nayak, Y. Sun, M. Schmidt, M. Nicklas, I. Leermakers, U. Zeitler, Y. Sk- ourski, J. Wosnitza, Z. Liu,et al., Nat. Phys.11, 645 (2015)

    2015

  5. [12]

    Li and F

    Y. Li and F. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 067003 (2018)

    2018

  6. [13]

    Bobrow, C

    E. Bobrow, C. Sun, and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. Research2, 012078 (2020)

    2020

  7. [14]

    Sun, S.-P

    C. Sun, S.-P. Lee, and Y. Li, arXiv:1909.04179 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Davydova, S

    M. Davydova, S. Prembabu, and L. Fu, Sci. Adv.8, eabo0309 (2022)

    2022

  9. [16]

    H. Wu, Y. Wang, Y. Xu, P. K. Sivakumar, C. Pasco, U. Filippozzi, S. S. P. Parkin, Y.-J. Zeng, T. McQueen, and M. N. Ali, Nat. Mater.604, 653 (2022)

    2022

  10. [17]

    Aggarwal, A

    L. Aggarwal, A. Gaurav, G. S. Thakur, Z. Haque, A. K. Ganguli, and G. Sheet, Nat. Mater. 15, 32 (2016)

    2016

  11. [18]

    H. Wang, H. Wang, H. Liu, H. Lu, W. Yang, S. Jia, X.-J. Liu, X. Xie, J. Wei, and J. Wang, Nat. Mater.15, 38 (2016)

    2016

  12. [19]

    L. He, Y. Jia, S. Zhang, X. Hong, C. Jin, and S. Li, npj Quantum Mater.1, 1 (2016)

    2016

  13. [20]

    Huang, B

    C. Huang, B. T. Zhou, H. Zhang, B. Yang, R. Liu, H. Wang, Y. Wan, K. Huang, Z. Liao, E. Zhang, S. Liu, Q. Deng, Y. Chen, X. Han, J. Zou, X. Lin, Z. Han, Y. Wang, K. Law, and F. Xiu, Nat. Commun.10, 2217 (2019)

    2019

  14. [21]

    Chu, J.-J

    C.-G. Chu, J.-J. Chen, A.-Q. Wang, Z.-B. Tan, C.-Z. Li, C. Li, A. Brinkman, P.-Z. Xiang, N. Li, Z. Pan, H.-Z. Lu, D. Yu, and Z.-M. Liao, Nat. Commun.14, 6162 (2023)

    2023

  15. [22]

    Li, A.-Q

    C.-Z. Li, A.-Q. Wang, C. Li, W.-Z. Zheng, A. Brinkman, D.-P. Yu, and Z.-M. Liao, Nat. Commun.11, 1150 (2020). 10

    2020

  16. [23]

    Suslov, A

    A. Suslov, A. Davydov, L. Oveshnikov, L. Morgun, K. Kugel, V. Zakhvalinskii, E. Pilyuk, A. Kochura, A. Kuzmenko, V. Pudalov, and B. Aronzon, Phys. Rev. B99, 094512 (2019)

    2019

  17. [24]

    Rashidi, R

    A. Rashidi, R. Kealhofer, A. C. Lygo, V. Huang, and S. Stemmer, APL Mater.11(2023)

    2023

  18. [25]

    Rashidi, W

    A. Rashidi, W. Huynh, B. Guo, S. Ahadi, and S. Stemmer, npj Quantum Mater.9, 70 (2024)

    2024

  19. [26]

    Q. L. He, H. Liu, M. He, Y. H. Lai, H. He, G. Wang, K. T. Law, R. Lortz, J. Wang, and I. K. Sou, Nat. Commun.5, 4247 (2014)

    2014

  20. [27]

    Yasuda, H

    K. Yasuda, H. Yasuda, T. Liang, R. Yoshimi, A. Tsukazaki, K. S. Takahashi, N. Nagaosa, M. Kawasaki, and Y. Tokura, Nat. Commun.10, 2734 (2019)

    2019

  21. [28]

    Liang, Y

    J. Liang, Y. J. Zhang, X. Yao, H. Li, Z.-X. Li, J. Wang, Y. Chen, and I. K. Sou, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.117, 221 (2020)

    2020

  22. [29]

    X. Yao, M. Brahlek, H. T. Yi, D. Jain, A. R. Mazza, M.-G. Han, and S. Oh, Nano Lett.21, 6518 (2021)

    2021

  23. [30]

    X. Yao, A. R. Mazza, M.-G. Han, H. T. Yi, D. Jain, M. Brahlek, and S. Oh, Nano Lett.22, 7522 (2022)

    2022

  24. [31]

    Tk´ aˇ c, S

    V. Tk´ aˇ c, S. Vorobiov, P. Baloh, M. Vondracek, G. Springholz, K. Carva, P. Szab´ o, P. Hofmann, and J. Honolka, npj 2D Mater. Appl.8(2023)

    2023

  25. [32]

    X. Yao, H. T. Yi, D. Jain, X. Yuan, and S. Oh, arXiv:2410.17671 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Yi, L.-H

    H. Yi, L.-H. Hu, Y.-F. Zhao, L.-J. Zhou, Z.-J. Yan, R. Zhang, W. Yuan, Z. Wang, K. Wang, D. R. Hickey,et al., Nat. Commun.14, 7119 (2023)

    2023

  27. [34]

    Yi, Y.-F

    H. Yi, Y.-F. Zhao, Y.-T. Chan, J. Cai, R. Mei, X. Wu, Z.-J. Yan, L.-J. Zhou, R. Zhang, Z. Wang, S. Paolini, R. Xiao, K. Wang, A. R. Richardella, J. Singleton, L. E. Winter, T. Prokscha, Z. Salman, A. Suter, P. P. Balakrishnan, A. J. Grutter, M. H. W. Chan, N. Samarth, X. Xu, W...

    2024

  28. [35]

    Yuan, Z.-J

    W. Yuan, Z.-J. Yan, H. Yi, Z. Wang, S. Paolini, Y.-F. Zhao, L. Zhou, A. G. Wang, K. Wang, T. Prokscha, Z. Salman, A. SuterPurnima, P. Balakrishnan, A. J. Grutter, L. E. Winter, J. Singleton, M. H. W. Chan, and C.-Z. Chang, Nano Lett.24, 7962 (2024)

    2024

  29. [36]

    Yan, Y.-T

    Z.-J. Yan, Y.-T. Chan, W. Yuan, A. G. Wang, H. Yi, Z. Wang, L. Zhou, H. Rong, D. Zhuo, K. Wang, J. Singleton, L. E. Winter, W. Wu, and C.-Z. Chang, arXiv:2412.09354 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Tsipas, D

    P. Tsipas, D. Tsoutsou, S. Fragkos, R. Sant, C. Alvarez, H. Okuno, G. Renaud, R. Alcotte, T. Baron, and A. Dimoulas, ACS Nano12, 1696 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Y. Ou, W. Yanez, R. Xiao, M. Stanley, S. Ghosh, B. Zheng, W. Jiang, Y.-S. Huang, T. Pills- bury, A. Richardella,et al., Nat. Commun.13, 2972 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Subedi, L

    A. Subedi, L. Zhang, D. J. Singh, and M.-H. Du, Phys. Rev. B78, 134514 (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    G. Chen, Z. Chen, J. Dong, W. Hu, G. Li, X. Zhang, P. Zheng, J. Luo, and N. Wang, Phys. Rev. B79, 140509 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    See supplemental material at:INSERT_URL_HEREfor further details about sample growth, material characterization. (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    Ichimiya and P

    A. Ichimiya and P. I. Cohen,Reflection high-energy electron diffraction(Cambridge University Press, 2004)

    2004

  36. [44]

    Hasegawa,Reflection high-energy electron diffraction, Vol

    S. Hasegawa,Reflection high-energy electron diffraction, Vol. 97 (John Wiley & Sons Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012) pp. 1925–1938

    2012

  37. [45]

    Muhammad, B

    Z. Muhammad, B. Zhang, H. Lv, H. Shan, Z. U. Rehman, S. Chen, Z. Sun, X. Wu, A. Zhao, and L. Song, ACS Nano14, 835 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    T. Liu, X. Ke, B. Qian, J. Hu, D. Fobes, E. Vehstedt, H. Pham, J. Yang, M. Fang, L. Spinu, P. Schiffer, L. Y, and Z. Mao, Phys. Rev. B80, 174509 (2009)

    2009

  39. [47]

    S. H. Lee, Y. Zhu, Y. Wang, L. Miao, T. Pillsbury, H. Yi, S. Kempinger, J. Hu, C. A. Heikes, P. Quarterman,et al., Phys. Rev. Research1, 012011 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    M. Park, M. Isaacson, and J. Parpia, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 3740 (1995)

    1995

  41. [49]

    Zhang, M

    G. Zhang, M. Zeleznik, J. Vanacken, P. W. May, and V. V. Moshchalkov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 077001 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    W. Si, Q. Jie, L. Wu, J. Zhou, G. Gu, P. Johnson, and Q. Li, Phys. Rev. B.81, 092506 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature556, 43 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    J. M. Park, Y. Cao, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature590, 249 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Chandrasekhar, Appl

    B. Chandrasekhar, Appl. Phys. Letters1(1962)

    1962

  46. [54]

    A. M. Clogston, Phys. Rev. Lett.9, 266 (1962)

    1962

  47. [55]

    J. Lu, O. Zheliuk, I. Leermakers, N. F. Yuan, U. Zeitler, K. T. Law, and J. Ye, Science350, 1353 (2015). 12

    2015

  48. [56]

    Saito, Y

    Y. Saito, Y. Kasahara, J. Ye, Y. Iwasa, and T. Nojima, Science350, 409 (2015)

    2015

  49. [57]

    Bauer, G

    E. Bauer, G. Hilscher, H. Michor, C. Paul, E.-W. Scheidt, A. Gribanov, Y. Seropegin, H. No¨ el, M. Sigrist, and P. Rogl, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 027003 (2004)

    2004

  50. [58]

    S. Khim, J. Landaeta, J. Banda, N. Bannor, M. Brando, P. Brydon, D. Hafner, R. K¨ uchler, R. Cardoso-Gil, U. Stockert,et al., Science373, 1012 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    Y. Cao, J. M. Park, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature595, 526 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys6, 1181 (1973)

    1973

  53. [61]

    J. M. Kosterlitz, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys7, 1046 (1974)

    1974

  54. [62]

    Halperin and D

    B. Halperin and D. R. Nelson, J. Low Temp. Phys.36, 599 (1979)

    1979

  55. [63]

    Y.-H. Lin, J. Nelson, and A. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 017002 (2012)

    2012

  56. [64]

    Venditti, J

    G. Venditti, J. Biscaras, S. Hurand, N. Bergeal, J. Lesueur, A. Dogra, R. Budhani, M. Mondal, J. Jesudasan, P. Raychaudhuri, S. Caprara, and L. Benfatto, Phys. Rev. B100, 064506 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Kumar Ojha, P

    S. Kumar Ojha, P. Mandal, S. Kumar, J. Maity, and S. Middey, Commun. Phys.6, 126 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    Hoshino, R

    S. Hoshino, R. Wakatsuki, K. Hamamoto, and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. B98, 054510 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    Rikken and P

    G. Rikken and P. Wyder, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 016601 (2005)

    2005

  60. [68]

    Yan and C

    B. Yan and C. Felser, Ann. Rev. Cond. Matt. Phys. , 337 (2016)

    2016

  61. [69]

    F. Ando, Y. Miyasaka, T. Li, J. Ishizuka, T. Arakawa, Y. Shiota, T. Moriyama, Y. Yanase, and T. Ono, Nature584, 373 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    Y. Hou, F. Nichele, H. Chi, A. Lodesani, Y. Wu, M. F. Ritter, D. Z. Haxell, M. Davydova, S. Ili´ c, O. Glezakou-Elbert, A. Varambally, F. S. Bergeret, A. Kamra, L. Fu, P. A. Lee, and J. S. Moodera, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 027001 (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    J. Ma, R. Zhan, and X. Lin, Adv. Physics Res , 2400180 (2025)

    2025

  64. [72]

    P. P. Balakrishnan, H. Yi, Z.-J. Yan, W. Yuan, A. Suter, C. J. Jensen, P. Manuel, F. Orlandi, T. Hanashima, C. J. Kinane, A. Caruana, B. Maranville, Z. Salman, T. Prokscha, C.-Z. Chang, and A. Grutter, arXiv:2503.11502 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Koteski, V

    V. Koteski, V. N. Ivanovski, A. Umi´ cevi´ c, J. Beloˇ sevi´ c-ˇCavor, D. Toprek, and H.-E. Mahnke, J. Magn. Magn. Mater441, 769 (2017). 13 FIG. 1. (a) Crystal structure of ZrTe2. (b) Crystal structure of FeTe. (c) RHEED images captured during different stages of growth: the p...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.