Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Nitrogen-Vacancy Magnetometry of Edge Magnetism in WS2 Flakes

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Room-temperature edge-localized magnetization in WS2 flakes is imaged directly with nitrogen-vacancy magnetometry, with stray fields up to ±4.7 µT that scale linearly with applied field and are best explained by a slightly tilted edge…

desk verdict Edge-localized stray-field imaging in WS2 is a credible first, but the spin-canting tilt claim rests on a fitted angle the paper never reports; that needs fixing before the orientation conclusion can stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11728 v2 pith:XMMHD4JX submitted 2025-05-16 cond-mat.mes-hall

Ilja Fescenko , Raman Kumar , Thitinun Gas-Osoth , Yifei Wang , Suvechhya Lamichhane , Tianlin Li , Adam Erickson , Nina Raghavan
show 10 more authors
Tom Delord Cory D. Cress Nicholas Proscia Samuel W. LaGasse Sy-Hwang Liou Xia Hong Jose J. Fonseca Toshu An Carlos A. Meriles Abdelghani Laraoui
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords nitrogen-vacancymagnetometryWS2transitionmetaldichalcogenidesedgemagnetismstrayfieldimagingspincanting2Dspintronicsopticallydetectedmagneticresonance
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 the first direct imaging of magnetic stray fields localized at the edges of WS2 flakes at room temperature, using nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers in diamond as the magnetic sensor. It claims that the edge fields, up to ±4.7 µT, scale linearly with an applied magnetic field from 4.4 to 220 mT, and that comparing five magnetization models favors an edge magnetization slightly tilted from the flake normal, an effect attributed to spin canting in antiferromagnetically coupled edge states. The result matters because it localizes in space the weak ferromagnetism previously seen only in bulk measurements of WS2 nanosheets, and it identifies flake edges, not Fe dopants, as the source of the magnetic response. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that WS2 flakes are a viable platform for edge-controlled 2D spintronics.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the conversion of a local magnetic field into a measurable shift of the NV spin resonance frequencies: $B_{\rm str} = (f_+ \pm f_-)/(2\gamma_{\rm NV}) - B_{\rm app}$, with $\gamma_{\rm NV}=28$ GHz/T, applied pixel-by-pixel to amplitude-weighted Lorentzian fits of the optically detected magnetic resonance dips. The edge-magnetism identification is carried by a five-model comparison: Model P (paramagnetic flake), Model PE (paramagnetic edges), Model N (moments perpendicular to the edge faces), Model Z (moments along the out-of-plane $z$-axis), and Model ZC (out-of-plane with a fitted canting angle in the $yz$-plane). For each model, finite-element magnetostatic simulations are fit to line cuts of the measured stray field after convolution with a ~325 nm Gaussian kernel representing the diffraction-limited resolution; only the $z$-aligned and canting models reproduce the sign-alternating edge profiles observed on both diamond orientations. The ZC model adds one fitting parameter and resolves the minor asymmetries, which the authors attribute to spin canting in antiferromagnetically coupled edge states.

What would settle it

A decisive control would be scanning-NV imaging at ~50 nm resolution over the same flakes: a true dipolar edge field should persist with the same sign pattern and profile shape, whereas an optical artifact should track the fluorescence hotspot map (which is brightest at WS2/hBN edges). A second control, imaging a non-magnetic hBN flake on the same diamond under identical conditions, should show no edge-localized stray field; if it does, the extraction is contaminated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the authors establish that exfoliated WS2 flakes (45–160 nm thick) produce stray magnetic fields concentrated at their edges, imaged at room temperature by optically detected magnetic resonance of shallow nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond. The stray-field amplitude is linear in the applied field between 4.4 and 220 mT, reaching ±4.7 µT at 63.2 mT for the 160-nm flake, and the spatial pattern changes from an 'absorptive' to a 'dispersive' shape depending on diamond orientation, as expected for a dipolar field projected onto the NV axis. Finite-element magnetostatic simulations of five magnetization geometries—whole-flake paramagnetism, edge paramagnetism, edge moments normal to the side faces, out-of-plane edge moments, and out-of-plane edge moments with a fitted canting angle (Model ZC)—single out the last as the best description of the measured profiles on both (100) and (110) diamonds. Because Fe-implanted flakes show the same edge signal without any uniform magnetization across the flake, the authors conclude that the magnetism originates from the edges or intrinsic defects rather than from the implanted ions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the edge-localized shifts in the nitrogen-vacancy resonance are magnetic in origin; if the two-fold higher fluorescence at WS2/hBN edges biases the resonance-dip fitting or changes its contrast, the apparent stray-field maps could be partly optical artifacts rather than real magnetic fields.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • WS2 flakes can serve as room-temperature, edge-defined sources of stray magnetic field, so flake shape and edge chemistry control the magnetic landscape for nearby spins.
  • Because the edge signal scales linearly with applied field rather than showing hysteresis, practical spintronic devices would need a control field or another way to stabilize the edge moment.
  • The similar edge signal in pristine and Fe-implanted flakes indicates that doping is not required for edge magnetism, steering future work toward edge termination and defect density.
  • The weak thickness dependence means even 45-nm-thin flakes give measurable edge fields, making monolayer or few-layer WS2 a plausible next target for this technique.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the canting angle in Model ZC is fitted and the paper admits its physical origin is unclear, a field-angle-resolved study should reveal whether the tilt is fixed by the crystal or follows the applied field direction; without that, spin canting is one of several possible explanations.
  • If edge magnetization is controlled by the filling of edge electronic states, as the cited theory suggests, gated WS2 devices should show a gate-tunable edge stray field; observing such modulation would be a direct test and a practical switch for edge spintronics.
  • The ~325 nm diffraction-limited resolution cannot distinguish a true one-dimensional edge spin chain from a wider magnetized strip (the simulations use a 200 nm × 300 nm bar), so a scanning-NV probe is the natural next measurement to locate the magnetization at the atomic edge.
  • The enhanced fluorescence at WS2/hBN edges suggests that contrast artifacts could mimic or distort magnetic maps; a systematic comparison of stray-field maps with fluorescence amplitude maps across many flakes would quantify how much of the apparent signal is optical.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports room-temperature wide-field nitrogen-vacancy (NV) magnetometry of exfoliated WS2 flakes (pristine and Fe-implanted, 45–160 nm thick) transferred onto diamond substrates. The authors observe stray magnetic fields localized at flake edges, with amplitudes up to ±4.7 µT that scale approximately linearly with an applied field of 4.4–220 mT. They compare their measured field profiles with finite-element simulations for five magnetization models and conclude that the data favor edge-localized magnetization tilted slightly from the flake normal (Model ZC), which they interpret as spin canting in antiferromagnetically coupled edge states. The paper also reports that Fe-implanted flakes show edge magnetism similar to pristine flakes, with no evidence of uniform Fe-induced magnetization.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a direct, spatially resolved observation of edge-localized magnetic stray fields in a non-van der Waals magnetic TMD at room temperature, using a technique capable of reaching the µT scale. The measured edge-localized signal is independent of the magnetization model, and the sign reversal across edges plus the growth with applied field are internally consistent and are shown for two different diamond orientations and for pristine and Fe-implanted flakes. These are genuine strengths. However, the headline orientation claim—'slightly tilted' edge magnetization—rests on a fitted tilt angle that is never reported, and the model comparison is qualitative. The optical artifact concern for the hBN-capped flake also deserves a concrete control. The central observation is likely salvageable, but the interpretation as spin canting needs substantially stronger quantitative support before publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, Figure 4 (Model ZC)] The claim that the edge magnetization is tilted from the flake normal is not quantitatively supported. The manuscript introduces the angle between the magnetization and the z-axis in the yz plane as a fitting parameter for Model ZC, but the best-fit value, its uncertainty, and the improvement over Model Z (angle fixed at 0°) are never reported. Because ZC contains Z as a special case and adds a parameter while addressing 'minor inconsistencies,' the better visual agreement cannot by itself establish a nonzero canting angle. Please report the fitted tilt angles and confidence intervals for Flakes 1, 2, and the Fe-implanted flake, and provide a quantitative model comparison, e.g., reduced χ² or AIC, across all five models. Without these numbers the abstract's 'slightly tilted' and 'spin canting' conclusions are premature; the direct edge-localized-field observation would remain valid even if the tilt turns out to be statistically indistinguishable from zero.
  2. [§2.1, Eq. (1), and SI Figure S3.3] The magnetic interpretation of the ODMR frequency shifts assumes that edge-enhanced fluorescence does not bias the amplitude-weighted dip analysis. For Flake 3 the paper reports roughly twice the fluorescence at WS2/hBN edges (Figure S3.3a), attributed to other quantum emitters or waveguiding effects. If the fluorescence modulation changes the ODMR contrast or lineshape, the Bstr maps computed from Eq. (1) could partially reflect an optical artifact rather than a magnetic stray field. Please provide a control test—for example, comparing ODMR contrast and linewidth on and off the edges, or fitting with a fixed-contrast model—to demonstrate that the edge-localized signal for Flake 3 is magnetic in origin. This is especially important because Flake 3 is used for the thickness-dependence claim, though the core edge-magnetism observation also relies on Flakes 1 and 2.
  3. [§2.1 and SI S4 (COMSOL model)] The model interpretation depends on several ad hoc assumptions: a uniformly magnetized edge bar of 200 nm × 300 nm cross-section, a Gaussian convolution width of 325 nm, the NV sensing depth, and a separate fitted volume magnetization for each flake. The authors state that the bar cross-section has negligible influence and that the consistent signal width supports the sub-resolution assumption, but no sensitivity analysis is shown. Please include a table of all model parameters (bar dimensions, standoff, convolution width, fitted magnetization and tilt for each flake) and a brief robustness check showing that the inferred magnetization orientation, particularly the canting angle, is stable to these choices. Without this, the fitted tilt could be an artifact of the assumed geometry rather than a physical property of the edges.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 3 caption] The caption for Figure 3(c,f) describes Model ZC as assuming 'edge magnetization along the z-axis normal to the image plane,' which contradicts the definition of ZC as a canted model. Please correct the caption to reflect that ZC allows a tilt in the yz plane.
  2. [Conclusion] The conclusion states that 'the exact nature of the observed tilt in the ZC model remains unclear,' which undercuts the abstract's stronger statement that the tilt is 'consistent with spin canting.' Please reconcile these statements, either by tempering the abstract or by providing the quantitative analysis that supports the canting interpretation.
  3. [SI S1] There are a few typographical errors in the supporting information: 'struggle' should be 'straggle' in the SRIM range discussion, and 'Falke 3' appears instead of 'Flake 3.' These should be corrected.
  4. [Methods, Eq. (1)] The sign convention in Eq. (1), specifically the use of 'plus' for Bapp > 102.5 mT near the ground-state level anti-crossing, is described only briefly. Please state explicitly how the sign of Bapp is assigned in the two regimes and how the ambiguity near the anti-crossing is handled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the edge-localized stray fields are directly measured, and the five-model comparison is a fit with an extra parameter, not a quantity derived from itself.

full rationale

The paper's central observation—edge-localized stray fields up to ±4.7 µT scaling linearly with applied field—is obtained directly from ODMR frequency shifts via Eq. (1), Bstr = (f+ ± f−)/2γNV − Bapp, with no model input; it therefore cannot reduce to the simulations. The five-model comparison is a magnetostatic forward calculation in which profile amplitudes and, for Model ZC, a canting angle are fitted to the measured profiles. The abstract's statement that simulations 'favor' a slightly tilted axis is a report of that fitted parameter, and the conclusion itself notes 'the exact nature of the observed tilt in the ZC model remains unclear.' The absence of a reported canting angle, confidence interval, or statistical comparison between Model Z (θ = 0) and Model ZC is a statistical-reporting weakness and should be a correctness concern, not a circularity: the tilt claim is an unquantified fit, not a predicted quantity that equals an input by construction. Self-citations (Refs. 30, 31, 58, 59) are confined to NV-layer fabrication, ODMR measurement procedures, and fitting methods; none is load-bearing for the edge-magnetism claim. The possible hBN-edge fluorescence artifact for Flake 3 is explicitly discussed as a limitation (Section 2.1, Figure S3.3a) and does not enter the model derivation. No step in the derivation chain is equivalent to its own input by definition.

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

The central claim rests on fitted edge magnetization and a fitted canting angle, plus assumptions that the edge magnetization is sub-resolution and that ODMR shifts are purely magnetic. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • edge volume magnetization M = 50 A/m (Flake 1 at 63.2 mT), 80 A/m (Flake 2 at 220 mT)
    Fitted to match simulated and measured stray field line profiles in Figures 3 and 4.
  • canting angle in Model ZC = not reported
    Introduced as a fitting parameter in Section 2.1 to account for asymmetric dispersive profiles; the paper only says 'slightly tilted' without reporting the angle or its uncertainty.
  • Gaussian convolution width = 325 nm
    Chosen to represent diffraction-limited resolution and applied to all simulated images; affects profile comparison, though described as physically motivated.
  • edge bar cross-section = 200 nm x 300 nm
    Chosen as a sub-resolution geometry for edge magnetization; the paper argues the finite cross-section has negligible influence on profiles.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Magnetostatic equations accurately describe the stray fields from magnetized WS2 in the COMSOL simulations.
    Section S4 and Section 2.1 use finite-element magnetostatic simulations to compute Bstr.
  • ad hoc to paper The edge magnetization can be represented as a uniformly magnetized bar of 200 nm x 300 nm cross-section, with the true magnetized volume smaller than the diffraction-limited spot.
    Introduced in Section 2.1; the paper says the assumption is supported by consistent signal widths, but it is not independently measured.
  • domain assumption NV ODMR frequency shifts are caused only by magnetic stray fields, not by local fluorescence or contrast variations; Eq. (1) removes common-mode strain and thermal shifts.
    Used throughout; the hBN-capped Flake 3 shows edge fluorescence enhancements that could affect ODMR fits, so this premise is load-bearing.
  • ad hoc to paper The five magnetization models (P, PE, N, Z, ZC) span the plausible physical configurations for WS2 edges.
    Model selection in Figure 4 assumes no missing configuration would also fit the data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nitrogen-Vacancy Magnetometry of Edge Magnetism in WS2 Flakes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XMMHD4JX

@misc{pith2026250511728,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nitrogen-Vacancy Magnetometry of Edge Magnetism in WS2 Flakes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XMMHD4JX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11728}
}
read the original abstract

Two-dimensional (2D) magnets are of significant interest both as a platform for exploring novel fundamental physics and for their potential in spintronic and optoelectronic devices. Recent bulk magnetometry studies have indicated a weak ferromagnetic response in WS2, and theoretical predictions suggest edge-localized magnetization in flakes with partial hydrogenation. Here, we use room-temperature wide-field quantum diamond magnetometry to image pristine and Fe-implanted WS2 flakes of varying thicknesses (45-160 nm), exfoliated from bulk crystals and transferred to NV-doped diamond substrates. We observe direct evidence of edge-localized stray magnetic fields, which scale linearly with applied external magnetic field (4.4-220 mT), reaching up to 4.7 uT. The edge signal shows a limited dependence on the flake thickness, consistent with dipolar field decay and sensing geometry. Magnetic simulations using five alternative models favor the presence of edge magnetization aligned along an axis slightly tilted from the normal to the WS2 flake plane, consistent with spin canting in antiferromagnetically coupled edge states. Our findings establish WS2 as a promising platform for edge-controlled 2D spintronics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.11728 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. b shows a schematic of the NV widefield microscope.[30,31] We optically excite the NVs via a green laser (130 mW, 532 nm), and collect the NV fluorescence (650 – 800 nm) via a sCMOS camera (Supporting Information, Section S2). We position the diamond above a glass coverslip patterned with Ti /Cu thick striplines (respectively 5 nm and 1.5 µm thick) for microwave (MW) manipulation of the NV spin states [PITH_FULL_IM… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Optical image (a), measured (b), and simulated stray field map using Model ZC (c) which assumes edge magnetization along the z-axis normal to the image plane with weak paramagnetic behavior. The experimental data (solid red in d and blue lines in e) correspond to NV magnetometry profiles measured along opposite edges of WS₂ flake in (b). Simulated profiles (dashed gray lines) in (d) are overlaid for direct compariso… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Huang, G

    B. Huang, G. Clark, E. Navarro-Moratalla, D. R. Klein, R. Cheng, K. L. Seyler, D. Zhong, E. Schmidgall, M. A. McGuire, D. H. Cobden, W. Yao, D. Xiao, P. Jarillo-Herrero, X. Xu, Nature 2017, 546, 270

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    C. Gong, L. Li, Z. Li, H. Ji, A. Stern, Y. Xia, T. Cao, W. Bao, C. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Q. Qiu, R. J. Cava, S. G. Louie, J. Xia, X. Zhang, Nature 2017, 546, 265

    2017

  3. [3]

    Bonilla, S

    M. Bonilla, S. Kolekar, Y. Ma, H. C. Diaz, V. Kalappattil, R. Das, T. Eggers, H. R. Gutierrez, M.-H. Phan, M. Batzill, Nature Nanotech 2018, 13, 289

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Z. Fei, B. Huang, P. Malinowski, W. Wang, T. Song, J. Sanchez, W. Yao, D. Xiao, X. Zhu, A. F. May, W. Wu, D. H. Cobden, J.-H. Chu, X. Xu, Nature Mater 2018, 17, 778

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Y. Deng, Y. Yu, Y. Song, J. Zhang, N. Z. Wang, Z. Sun, Y. Yi, Y. Z. Wu, S. Wu, J. Zhu, J. Wang, X. H. Chen, Y. Zhang, Nature 2018, 563, 94

    2018

  6. [6]

    S. N. Kajale, T. Nguyen, C. A. Chao, D. C. Bono, A. Boonkird, M. Li, D. Sarkar, Nat Commun 2024, 15, 1485. 19

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Z. Fu, P. I. Samarawickrama, Y. Zhu, Z. Mao, W. Wang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Tang, J. Ackerman, J. Tian, Nano Lett. 2023, 23, 11866

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Z. Fu, P. I. Samarawickrama, J. Ackerman, Y. Zhu, Z. Mao, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, W. Wang, Y. Dahnovsky, M. Wu, T. Chien, J. Tang, A. H. MacDonald, H. Chen, J. Tian, Nat Commun 2024, 15, 3630

    work page 2024

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Fan, Y.-R

    X.-L. Fan, Y.-R. An, W.-J. Guo, Nanoscale Res Lett 2016, 11, 154

    2016

  2. [10]

    J. Wang, J. Kang, S. Chyczewski, Y. Lin, H. Lee, W. Zhu, X. Hong, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2025, 58, 063001

    2025

  3. [11]

    P. Liu, Y. Zhang, K. Li, Y. Li, Y. Pu, iScience 2023, 26, 107584

    2023

  4. [12]

    L. Cai, J. He, Q. Liu, T. Yao, L. Chen, W. Yan, F. Hu, Y. Jiang, Y. Zhao, T. Hu, Z. Sun, S. Wei, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 2622

    2015

  5. [13]

    Zhang, B

    F. Zhang, B. Zheng, A. Sebastian, D. H. Olson, M. Liu, K. Fujisawa, Y. T. H. Pham, V. O. Jimenez, V. Kalappattil, L. Miao, T. Zhang, R. Pendurthi, Y. Lei, A. L. Elías, Y. Wang, N. Alem, P. E. Hopkins, S. Das, V. H. Crespi, M.-H. Phan, M. Terrones, Advanced Science 2020, 7, 2001174

    2020

  6. [14]

    S. Fu, K. Kang, K. Shayan, A. Yoshimura, S. Dadras, X. Wang, L. Zhang, S. Chen, N. Liu, A. Jindal, X. Li, A. N. Pasupathy, A. N. Vamivakas, V. Meunier, S. Strauf, E.-H. Yang, Nat Commun 2020, 11, 2034

    2020

  7. [15]

    W. Yu, J. Li, T. S. Herng, Z. Wang, X. Zhao, X. Chi, W. Fu, I. Abdelwahab, J. Zhou, J. Dan, Z. Chen, Z. Chen, Z. Li, J. Lu, S. J. Pennycook, Y. P. Feng, J. Ding, K. P. Loh, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1903779

    2019

  8. [16]

    S. J. Yun, D. L. Duong, D. M. Ha, K. Singh, T. L. Phan, W. Choi, Y. Kim, Y. H. Lee, Advanced Science 2020, 7, 1903076

    2020

  9. [17]

    Mishra, W

    R. Mishra, W. Zhou, S. J. Pennycook, S. T. Pantelides, J.-C. Idrobo, Phys. Rev. B 2013, 88, 144409

    2013

  10. [18]

    X. Lin, J. Ni, Journal of Applied Physics 2014, 116, 044311

    2014

  11. [19]

    J. Wang, F. Sun, S. Yang, Y. Li, C. Zhao, M. Xu, Y. Zhang, H. Zeng, Applied Physics Letters 2016, 109, 092401

    2016

  12. [20]

    Ahmed, X

    S. Ahmed, X. Ding, P. P. Murmu, N. Bao, R. Liu, J. Kennedy, L. Wang, J. Ding, T. Wu, A. Vinu, J. Yi, Small 2020, 16, 1903173

    2020

  13. [21]

    Ahmed, X

    S. Ahmed, X. Ding, N. Bao, P. Bian, R. Zheng, Y. Wang, P. P. Murmu, J. V. Kennedy, R. Liu, H. Fan, K. Suzuki, J. Ding, J. Yi, Chem. Mater. 2017, 29, 9066

    2017

  14. [22]

    Habib, Z

    M. Habib, Z. Muhammad, R. Khan, C. Wu, Z. Ur Rehman, Y. Zhou, H. Liu, L. Song, Nanotechnology 2018, 29, 115701

    2018

  15. [23]

    B. Xia, Q. Guo, D. Gao, S. Shi, K. Tao, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2016, 49, 165003

    2016

  16. [24]

    J. Luo, C. Li, J. Liu, Y. Liu, W. Xiao, R. Zheng, Q. Zheng, J. Han, T. Zou, W. Cheng, X. Yao, Y. Liu, J. Zhu, Applied Physics Letters 2024, 124, 033104

    2024

  17. [25]

    B. Han, F. Li, L. Li, X. Huang, Y. Gong, X. Fu, H. Gao, Q. Zhou, T. Cui, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2017, 8, 941

    2017

  18. [26]

    X. Mao, Y. Xu, Q. Xue, W. Wang, D. Gao, Nanoscale Res Lett 2013, 8, 430

    2013

  19. [27]

    J. Luxa, O. Jankovský, D. Sedmidubský, R. Medlín, M. Maryško, M. Pumera, Z. Sofer, Nanoscale 2016, 8, 1960

    2016

  20. [28]

    N. Huo, Y. Li, J. Kang, R. Li, Q. Xia, J. Li, Applied Physics Letters 2014, 104, 202406

    2014

  21. [29]

    K. Kang, S. Fu, K. Shayan, Y. Anthony, S. Dadras, X. Yuzan, F. Kazunori, M. Terrones, W. Zhang, S. Strauf, V. Meunier, A. N. Vamivakas, E.-H. Yang, Nanotechnology 2021, 32, 095708. 20

    2021

  22. [30]

    Fescenko, A

    I. Fescenko, A. Laraoui, J. Smits, N. Mosavian, P. Kehayias, J. Seto, L. Bougas, A. Jarmola, V. M. Acosta, Phys. Rev. Appl. 2019, 11, 034029

    2019

  23. [31]

    Lamichhane, K

    S. Lamichhane, K. A. McElveen, A. Erickson, I. Fescenko, S. Sun, R. Timalsina, Y. Guo, S.-H. Liou, R. Y. Lai, A. Laraoui, ACS Nano 2023, 17, 8694

    2023

  24. [32]

    Laraoui, K

    A. Laraoui, K. Ambal, Applied Physics Letters 2022, 121, 060502

    2022

  25. [33]

    Erickson, S

    A. Erickson, S. Q. Abbas Shah, A. Mahmood, I. Fescenko, R. Timalsina, C. Binek, A. Laraoui, RSC Adv. 2023, 13, 178

    2023

  26. [34]

    Timalsina, H

    R. Timalsina, H. Wang, B. Giri, A. Erickson, X. Xu, A. Laraoui, Adv Elect Materials 2024, 10, 2300648

    2024

  27. [35]

    Erickson, S

    A. Erickson, S. Q. A. Shah, A. Mahmood, P. Buragohain, I. Fescenko, A. Gruverman, C. Binek, A. Laraoui, Adv Funct Materials 2024, 2408542

    2024

  28. [36]

    Erickson, Q

    A. Erickson, Q. Zhang, H. Vakili, C. Li, S. Sarin, S. Lamichhane, L. Jia, I. Fescenko, E. Schwartz, S.-H. Liou, J. E. Shield, G. Chai, A. A. Kovalev, J. Chen, A. Laraoui, ACS Nano 2024, 18, 31261

    2024

  29. [37]

    Berzins, J

    A. Berzins, J. Smits, A. Petruhins, R. Rimsa, G. Mozolevskis, M. Zubkins, I. Fescenko, Opt. Express 2023, 31, 17950

    2023

  30. [38]

    Thiel, Z

    L. Thiel, Z. Wang, M. A. Tschudin, D. Rohner, I. Gutiérrez-Lezama, N. Ubrig, M. Gibertini, E. Giannini, A. F. Morpurgo, P. Maletinsky, Science 2019, 364, 973

    2019

  31. [39]

    Fabre, A

    F. Fabre, A. Finco, A. Purbawati, A. Hadj-Azzem, N. Rougemaille, J. Coraux, I. Philip, V. Jacques, Phys. Rev. Materials 2021, 5, 034008

    2021

  32. [40]

    Song, Q.-C

    T. Song, Q.-C. Sun, E. Anderson, C. Wang, J. Qian, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. A. McGuire, R. Stöhr, D. Xiao, T. Cao, J. Wrachtrup, X. Xu, Science 2021, 374, 1140

    2021

  33. [41]

    Q.-C. Sun, T. Song, E. Anderson, A. Brunner, J. Förster, T. Shalomayeva, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. Gräfe, R. Stöhr, X. Xu, J. Wrachtrup, Nat Commun 2021, 12, 1989

    2021

  34. [42]

    Marchiori, L

    E. Marchiori, L. Ceccarelli, N. Rossi, L. Lorenzelli, C. L. Degen, M. Poggio, Nat Rev Phys 2021, 4, 49

    2021

  35. [43]

    Gabor, Nature 1948, 161, 777

    D. Gabor, Nature 1948, 161, 777

    1948

  36. [44]

    Tonomura, Rev

    A. Tonomura, Rev. Mod. Phys. 1987, 59, 639

    1987

  37. [45]

    M. A. Tschudin, D. A. Broadway, P. Siegwolf, C. Schrader, E. J. Telford, B. Gross, J. Cox, A. E. E. Dubois, D. G. Chica, R. Rama-Eiroa, E. J. G. Santos, M. Poggio, M. E. Ziebel, C. R. Dean, X. Roy, P. Maletinsky, Nat Commun 2024, 15, 6005

    2024

  38. [46]

    X. Li, A. C. Jones, J. Choi, H. Zhao, V. Chandrasekaran, M. T. Pettes, A. Piryatinski, M. A. Tschudin, P. Reiser, D. A. Broadway, P. Maletinsky, N. Sinitsyn, S. A. Crooker, H. Htoon, Nat. Mater. 2023, 22, 1311

    2023

  39. [47]

    Zhang, Y.-X

    X.-Y. Zhang, Y.-X. Wang, T. A. Tartaglia, T. Ding, M. J. Gray, K. S. Burch, F. Tafti, B. B. Zhou, PRX Quantum 2021, 2, 030352

    2021

  40. [48]

    M. W. Doherty, N. B. Manson, P. Delaney, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, L. C. L. Hollenberg, Physics Reports 2013, 528, 1

    2013

  41. [49]

    C. Liu, G. Zhao, S. Picozzi, X. Li, J. Yang, Phys. Rev. B 2024, 110, 094409

    2024

  42. [50]

    N. V. Proscia, Z. Shotan, H. Jayakumar, P. Reddy, C. Cohen, M. Dollar, A. Alkauskas, M. Doherty, C. A. Meriles, V. M. Menon, Optica 2018, 5, 1128

    2018

  43. [51]

    S. W. LaGasse, N. V. Proscia, C. D. Cress, J. J. Fonseca, P. D. Cunningham, E. Janzen, J. H. Edgar, D. J. Pennachio, J. Culbertson, M. Zalalutdinov, J. T. Robinson, Advanced Materials 2024, 36, 2309777

    2024

  44. [52]

    X. Ding, T. Liu, S. Ahmed, N. Bao, J. Ding, J. Yi, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 2019, 772, 740. 21

    2019

  45. [53]

    Maletinsky, S

    P. Maletinsky, S. Hong, M. S. Grinolds, B. Hausmann, M. D. Lukin, R. L. Walsworth, M. Loncar, A. Yacoby, Nature Nanotech 2012, 7, 320

    2012

  46. [54]

    Zhang, P

    B. Zhang, P. Lu, R. Tabrizian, P. X.-L. Feng, Y. Wu, npj Spintronics 2024, 2, 6

    2024

  47. [55]

    F. M. O. Brito, L. Li, J. M. V. P. Lopes, E. V. Castro, Phys. Rev. B 2022, 105, 195130

    2022

  48. [56]

    Kinoshita, R

    K. Kinoshita, R. Moriya, M. Onodera, Y. Wakafuji, S. Masubuchi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, T. Machida, npj 2D Mater Appl 2019, 3, 1

    2019

  49. [57]

    Frisenda, E

    R. Frisenda, E. Navarro-Moratalla, P. Gant, D. P. D. Lara, P. Jarillo-Herrero, R. V. Gorbachev, A. Castellanos-Gomez, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2018, 47, 53

    2018

  50. [58]

    Lamichhane, R

    S. Lamichhane, R. Timalsina, C. Schultz, I. Fescenko, K. Ambal, S.-H. Liou, R. Y. Lai, A. Laraoui, Nano Lett. 2024, 24, 873

    2024

  51. [59]

    Fescenko, 2023, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2303.12544

    I. Fescenko, 2023, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2303.12544

    2023 doi arXiv

  52. [60]

    C. D. Cress, S. W. Schmucker, A. L. Friedman, P. Dev, J. C. Culbertson, J. W. Lyding, J. T. Robinson, ACS Nano 2016, 10, 3714

    2016

  53. [61]

    Klein, A

    J. Klein, A. Kuc, A. Nolinder, M. Altzschner, J. Wierzbowski, F. Sigger, F. Kreupl, J. J. Finley, U. Wurstbauer, A. W. Holleitner, M. Kaniber, 2D Mater. 2017, 5, 011007

    2017

  54. [62]

    Dowran, A

    M. Dowran, A. Butler, S. Lamichhane, A. Erickson, U. Kilic, S. Liou, C. Argyropoulos, A. Laraoui, Advanced Optical Materials 2023, 11, 2300392

    2023

  55. [63]

    Dowran, U

    M. Dowran, U. Kilic, S. Lamichhane, A. Erickson, J. Barker, M. Schubert, S. Liou, C. Argyropoulos, A. Laraoui, Laser & Photonics Reviews 2025, 19, 2400705

    2025

  56. [64]

    Pizzocchero, L

    F. Pizzocchero, L. Gammelgaard, B. S. Jessen, J. M. Caridad, L. Wang, J. Hone, P. Bøggild, T. J. Booth, Nat Commun 2016, 7, 11894

    2016

  57. [65]

    Fukamachi, P

    S. Fukamachi, P. Solís-Fernández, K. Kawahara, D. Tanaka, T. Otake, Y.-C. Lin, K. Suenaga, H. Ago, Nat Electron 2023, 6, 126

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.