Nonlinear Valley and Spin Valves in Bilayer Graphene

An-Qi Wang; Qing Yin; Tong-Yang Zhao; Xing-Yu Liu; Xin Liao; Zhi-Min Liao

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Nonlinear Valley and Spin Valves in Bilayer Graphene

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bilayer graphene with ferromagnetic contacts produces a second-harmonic spin-valve signal whose spin-precession critical field is several times larger than standard model predicts, pointing to valley orbital moments.

desk verdict Second-harmonic spin-valve-like signal in BLG/FGT is plausibly real, but the valley-polarization mechanism rests on a Hanle interpretation that the paper does not control against contact canting. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02939 v1 pith:KDSADBO5 submitted 2024-12-04 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Xin Liao , Xing-Yu Liu , An-Qi Wang , Qing Yin , Tong-Yang Zhao , Zhi-Min Liao This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords bilayergraphenenonlinearspinvalvesecond-harmonicgenerationHanleprecessionvalleypolarizationorbitalmagneticmomentFe3GeTe2proximityskewscattering

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 reports that bilayer graphene devices with Fe3GeTe2 contacts produce a second-harmonic voltage when driven by an AC current: the voltage grows with the square of the current and switches between high and low states depending on whether the two contacts' magnetizations are parallel or antiparallel. This is a spin-valve-like signal at twice the drive frequency, extending spin transport into the nonlinear regime. Under an in-plane magnetic field, the signal shows Hanle spin-precession curves, but the critical field needed to rotate the spins is about 0.8 T, six to eight times the roughly 0.13 T expected from standard graphene parameters. The authors attribute this enlarged critical field to a reduced spin torque caused by ferromagnetic-proximity-induced out-of-plane valley polarization, whose large orbital magnetic moments resist in-plane rotation. If correct, the effect offers a transport probe of valley magnetization and a route to frequency-doubling and rectification in spintronic devices.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Hanle spin-precession response of the second-harmonic signal, modeled by the drift-diffusion integral ΔV2ω ∝ ∫ (4πDt)^-1/2 exp[−(L−vt)^2/(4Dt)] cos(ω_L t) exp(−t/τs) dt, where ω_L = g μ_B B∥/ℏ is the Larmor frequency. The experimental observable is the critical field Bc, defined as the field at which the average spin precession angle reaches about 90°, which quantifies how much torque the in-plane field exerts. The interpretive machinery also includes the nonlinear scaling law E2ω/$Eω^{2}$ = A0 + A1 σ/σ0 + A2 (σ/σ0)^2, whose coefficient ratios identify the dominant scattering mechanism, and the valley-contrasting orbital magnetic moment m_orb of gapped bilayer graphene, which is opposite in sign at the K and K' valleys and can exceed 30 μ_B near the charge neutrality point. The paper uses m_orb as the source of the reduced spin torque that enlarges Bc.

What would settle it

Fabricate a nearly identical bilayer-graphene device but insert an hBN barrier between the FGT contacts and the graphene so that ferromagnetic proximity is suppressed, then measure the Hanle curve of the second-harmonic signal; if Bc returns to about 0.13 T, the enhanced critical field is proximity-driven, while if Bc remains near 0.8 T the effect is intrinsic to the measurement geometry or contacts rather than to valley orbital moments.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a longitudinal second-harmonic voltage V2ω in dual-gated bilayer graphene contacted by two Fe3GeTe2 electrodes. V2ω is quadratic in the applied current, shows clear sign reversal at charge neutrality of the proximity-doped bilayer region, and exhibits plateaus at parallel and antiparallel contact magnetizations, with the difference ΔV2ω between these states serving as the nonlinear spin-valve signal. Scaling analysis of E2ω/$Eω^{2}$ versus σ/σ0 yields coefficients A0:A1:A2 ≈ 1:−2:1, which the paper reads as dynamic skew scattering under preserved C3v symmetry. In-plane Hanle measurements give a critical field Bc ≈ 0.8 T, far above the ~0.13 T expected from the estimated spin relaxation time τs = 100 ps and diffusion constant D = 0.03 $m^{2}$/s with g ≈ 2. The paper argues that ferromagnetic proximity induces both spin Zeeman and valley Zeeman splitting, so the second-harmonic current carries spin polarization and out-of-plane orbital magnetic moments; since orbital moments in two dimensions point out of plane and resist in-plane rotation, the spin torque from an in-plane field is reduced and Bc is correspondingly enhanced. This is presented as the first observation of spin transport in bilayer graphene at the second-harmonic order.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation assumes that the measured second-harmonic voltage obeys the same Hanle spin-precession equation as a linear spin valve, with the same diffusion constant and spin lifetime, so that the large critical field can be read as a reduction of spin torque.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the observed effect is a true spin-valve response at the second harmonic, spin information can be read out at twice the drive frequency, enabling frequency-doubling and rectification in spintronic devices.
The enlarged critical field Bc provides a transport-based indicator of out-of-plane valley polarization: a large Bc signals that orbital magnetic moments are present in the channel.
The skew-scattering scaling relation gives future experiments a way to distinguish intrinsic, side-jump, and skew-scattering contributions to second-order spin and valley currents.
Because Bc decreases as the top-gate voltage moves away from the charge-neutrality point, the valley-orbital contribution is electrostatically tunable, allowing gate control of the nonlinear spin-valve response.
The proximity-modified bilayer graphene under the Fe3GeTe2 contacts acts as a source of spin- and valley-polarized second-harmonic current, providing a building block for van der Waals valleytronic circuits.

Reading between the lines

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

If the orbital-moment interpretation survives further tests, second-harmonic Hanle measurements could become a quantitative transport probe of valley magnetization in proximitized graphene, yielding the valley Zeeman energy without requiring optical access.
The sixfold-to-eightfold reduction of spin torque implied by Bc ≈ 0.8 T may also include a contribution from spin-orbit coupling induced by Fe3GeTe2 proximity; a control experiment with a nonmagnetic barrier between the contacts and the channel could separate orbital-moment from spin-orbit effects.
The quadratic current scaling suggests the device could function as a broadband spin-signal frequency doubler; testing at gigahertz frequencies, where the phase relation V2ω ∝ I^2[1 + sin(2ωt − π/2)]/2 is expected to hold, would directly probe the nonlinear mechanism.
The observed coefficient ratio A0:A1:A2 = 1:−2:1 is consistent with dynamic skew scattering, but the same combination can arise from other disorder models; comparing devices with different impurity concentrations or controlled temperature would test whether this ratio uniquely identifies the scattering channel.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: the second-harmonic spin-valve-like signal in BLG/FGT looks real, and that is a new experimental result. The valley-polarization mechanism the paper hangs on it does not, because the Hanle interpretation is uncontrolled against the obvious canting of the FGT contacts.

Credit where due. The P/AP switching of V2ω, the quadratic current dependence, the appearance near the proximity-shifted CNP, and the reproducibility in two devices are respectable. The authors also did reasonable side-effect checks: frequency independence rules out capacitive rectification, the two-terminal I-V linearity rules out a diode, and the symmetrization against Hall mixing is sensible. The scaling-law analysis using the 1:-2:1 ratio to infer dynamic skew scattering is a legitimate application of the Du et al. framework, though the fitted coefficients come with no uncertainties.

The soft spot is Fig. 4(a). The authors interpret the monotonic decay of ΔV2ω under in-plane field as Hanle precession with a critical field near 0.8 T. But Fe3GeTe2 is a hard perpendicular ferromagnet, and an in-plane field will cant the contact magnetizations toward the plane, reducing the out-of-plane spin/valve detection efficiency. That alone produces a decay to zero at roughly the anisotropy field, which is what the data show. The paper does not measure the contact magnetization orientation during the sweep, does not use a nonlocal geometry, and has no nonmagnetic-contact control. Appendix E concedes that fitting the Hanle drift-diffusion model requires D and τs to move by an order of magnitude, and with g also adjustable the smooth curve can be matched even if no precession is happening. So the six-to-eight-fold Bc enhancement and the orbital/valley-polarization conclusion are not established.

The stress-test note holds up on reading: the canting alternative is not controlled. I'd soften the reader's weakest-assumption wording only slightly—the paper never explicitly derives that a second-order nonlinear signal obeys the same Hanle equation, so it is an assumption, and the fit alone cannot rescue it. The empirical observation may survive, but the mechanism claim needs direct evidence of valley polarization, a magnetization-angle measurement, or a control device without FGT canting.

This paper is for experimental spintronics and valleytronics readers. The observation is worth a serious referee; the interpretation is not. I'd send it to review, but the review letter should ask for the controls before the mechanism claim can stand.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports second-harmonic longitudinal voltages in bilayer graphene devices contacted by Fe3GeTe2 (FGT) electrodes. The second-harmonic signal scales quadratically with the applied AC current, depends on the parallel versus antiparallel magnetization configuration of the two FGT contacts, and exhibits a Hanle-like decay with in-plane magnetic field. The authors interpret the quadratic current dependence and the parallel/antiparallel switching as evidence of a nonlinear spin-valve effect, and they attribute the anomalously large critical in-plane field (about 0.8 T versus an estimated 0.13 T) to an out-of-plane orbital magnetic moment associated with ferromagnetic-proximity-induced valley polarization in bilayer graphene.

Significance. If the central interpretation is correct, this would be the first demonstration of a second-harmonic spin valve in graphene and would extend nonlinear valley/spin transport into a new regime, with potential frequency-doubling and rectification applications. The manuscript has several strengths: data are shown for two devices, the quadratic current dependence of V2ω is demonstrated, a symmetrization procedure is used to separate Hall mixing, the frequency dependence is checked to exclude capacitive artifacts, and the device quality is documented by Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations and a scaling analysis of the second-harmonic coefficient. However, the load-bearing claim that the large critical field signals orbital/valley polarization rests on a Hanle interpretation that is not uniquely established by the data, and the alternative explanation of FGT contact magnetization canting is not addressed. The empirical nonlinear spin-valve-like switching may be robust, but the valley-polarization mechanism needs substantially stronger support.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Fig. 4(a), Appendix E] The interpretation of the in-plane-field decay of ΔV2ω as Hanle spin precession presupposes that the second-harmonic signal obeys the same linear drift-diffusion equation used for first-harmonic spin valves. Appendix E states that fitting the data requires a diffusion constant one order of magnitude larger and a spin relaxation time one order of magnitude smaller than the nominal estimates, and the g-factor is also adjustable. The 'expected' 0.13 T curve is therefore not a fixed prediction but one point in a multi-parameter space. The six- to eight-fold enhancement of Bc is a fitted outcome, not an independent test. The authors should derive the Hanle response for a second-order nonlinear spin/valley signal, report the fit parameters with uncertainties, and test whether the fitted D and τs are physically plausible for this system.
[Section III, Fig. 4 and Fig. 3] An in-plane magnetic field will cant the perpendicularly magnetized FGT contacts toward the plane, progressively reducing the out-of-plane spin/valley injection and detection efficiency. This mechanism produces a monotonically decaying ΔV2ω(B∥) that vanishes near the anisotropy field, without requiring any spin precession. The measured decay near 0.8 T is comparable to the FGT coercive fields (0.52 and 0.60 T, Fig. 2(c)), and the Hanle curves in Fig. 4(a) are smooth and monotonic, which is fully compatible with contact canting. Because the paper does not measure the contact magnetization direction during the sweep, does not use a true nonlocal geometry, and provides no control device with nonmagnetic contacts, the data do not uniquely establish that the decay is caused by spin precession. The authors should measure or infer the FGT magnetization orientation as a function of B∥, or provide a control experiment that separates contact magnetoresistance from channel spin accumulation, before attributing the large Bc to valley-polarization-induced orbital moments.
[Section III, Fig. 1(f), Appendix B] The scaling-law analysis extracts A0, A1, and A2 from a fit to the conductivity ratio and then uses the resulting ratio A0:A1:A2 ≈ 1:-2:1 to conclude that dynamic skew scattering is the dominant mechanism. No uncertainties or goodness-of-fit measures are reported for these coefficients, and no comparison is made with alternative combinations of intrinsic, side-jump, and static-versus-dynamic skew-scattering terms that might produce a similar ratio for part of the parameter range. Since this scaling conclusion is used later to argue that the nonlinear signal is valley-contrasting in origin, the authors should provide confidence intervals for A0, A1, and A2 and a model-selection analysis that rules out other contributions.

minor comments (6)

[Section III] The text calls the signal a 'nonlocal spin valve' while the measurement in Fig. 1(a) is a four-terminal local longitudinal configuration; please clarify whether the signal is genuinely nonlocal, because contact magnetoresistance contributions differ between local and nonlocal geometries.
[Appendix E] The phrase 'spin attains a nonzero drift velocity' in the drift-diffusion equation is not derived; please specify how the drift velocity μE is obtained and whether its direction is along the channel.
[Appendix F] The statement that an orbital magnetic moment 'exceeds 30 times the Bohr magneton' is cited to a prior theoretical work but is not derived for the specific FGT/BLG proximity system; please clarify whether this value is a direct prediction for the present device or a general property of gapped bilayer graphene.
[Fig. 2(a)] The axis label 'Rxx (W)' should read 'Rxx (Ω)'.
[Section III] There are several typographical errors, including 'titled' for 'tilted' and 'relaxion' for 'relaxation'; please proofread the text.
[Fig. 4(d)] The error bars on Bc and ΔV2ω as functions of temperature are not defined; please state how the uncertainty in the extracted critical field is estimated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scaling-law ratio is compared with an external theory, and the Hanle-orbit interpretation is an inference rather than a self-referential fit.

full rationale

The paper's two apparent fit-to-inference moves are not circular. The scaling-law analysis fits A0, A1, A2 to E2omega/Eomega^2 versus sigma/sigma0 and obtains A0:A1:A2 approximately 1:-2:1; this ratio is then compared with the independent theoretical decomposition in Appendix F (from Du et al. [38]) that assigns that ratio to dynamic skew scattering. The fitted ratio is used as evidence for a mechanism, but it is not a prediction that is equivalent to its input by construction. The Hanle analysis is also not definitionally circular: the estimated curve with tau_s = 100 ps, D = 0.03 m2/s, and g approximately 2 is an external model input; the data are fitted with shifted D and tau_s, and the large extracted Bc is used to motivate an orbital/valley contribution. No equation defines Bc in terms of the orbital/valley polarization and then re-predicts that same Bc; the orbital moment magnitude is imported from independent prior theory (Xiao et al. [1]). The main scientific weaknesses, such as the absence of a nonmagnetic-contact control, the FGT canting alternative, and the internal tension between the main text's claim that small variations of D and tau_s cannot explain the Bc change and Appendix E's admission that the fit requires order-of-magnitude shifts in those parameters, are correctness and confound concerns, not circularity. The self-citations [20,35] are introductory examples of nonlinear Hall research and are not load-bearing for the valley/spin claim. No step in the claimed derivation chain reduces to its own input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The analysis postulates a proximity-induced valley polarization state and an associated orbital magnetic moment contribution to explain the Hanle anomaly, but these are inferred states rather than measured entities and carry no independent falsifiable handle beyond the transport curves they were invoked to explain.

free parameters (4)

A0, A1, A2 scaling coefficients = not reported; ratio approximately 1:-2:1
Fitted to E2ω/Eω^2 versus σ/σ0 at each gate voltage and used to identify dynamic skew scattering as the dominant contribution.
τs (spin relaxation time) = about one order of magnitude smaller than 100 ps
The paper estimates a baseline τs of 100 ps but reports that Hanle fits require τs one order smaller to match the data.
D (diffusion constant) = about one order of magnitude larger than 0.03 m^2/s
Estimated via the Einstein relation as 0.03 m^2/s, but fits require D one order larger.
g-factor = 2 assumed, effectively reduced in interpretation
The standard graphene g-factor of 2 is assumed in the baseline Hanle model; the explanation of the large Bc requires a reduced effective torque, which is not independently measured.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The standard drift-diffusion Hanle model for spin precession applies to the measured second-harmonic voltage.
Appendix E uses the linear spin valve Hanle equation to interpret ΔV2ω without proving that a second-order nonlinear spin or valley signal follows the same dynamics.
domain assumption The measured ΔV2ω originates from spin and valley polarized carriers in the BLG channel, not from contact artifacts or thermoelectric effects.
Side effects are tested and excluded, but the spin and valley origin is inferred from the dependence on FGT magnetization rather than directly observed.
domain assumption Fe3GeTe2 proximity induces a valley Zeeman effect with an orbital magnetic moment exceeding about 30 Bohr magnetons.
This is cited from prior theoretical results and similar heterostructures, not measured in the present devices.
ad hoc to paper A large out-of-plane orbital magnetic moment resists in-plane rotation and reduces the effective spin torque.
Proposed after observing Bc ≈ 0.8 T; no quantitative model links the orbital moment to the Hanle response, making the premise specific to this paper's interpretation.
domain assumption The scaling law ratio A0:A1:A2 ≈ 1:-2:1 uniquely identifies dynamic skew scattering.
The paper relies on the theory in reference [38] to map fitted coefficients to scattering mechanisms; the ratio is a fitted output used as the diagnostic.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear Valley and Spin Valves in Bilayer Graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KDSADBO5

@misc{pith2026241202939,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinear Valley and Spin Valves in Bilayer Graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KDSADBO5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02939}
}

read the original abstract

Nonlinear transport plays a vital role in probing the quantum geometry of Bloch electrons, valley chirality, and carrier scattering mechanisms. The nonlinear Hall effect, characterized by a nonlinear scaling of Hall voltage with longitudinal current, has been explored to reveal the Berry curvature and quantum metric related physics. In this work, we extend the study of nonlinear transport to spin and valley degrees of freedom. Using bilayer graphene devices with Fe3GeTe2 contacts, we observe a second-order nonlinear spin current exhibiting spin valve-like behaviors. By tracking magnetic moment precession under an in-plane magnetic field, we identify a significantly enhanced critical magnetic field required for in-plane rotation, suggesting out-of-plane valley polarization induced by ferromagnetic proximity. These findings offer deep insights into the interplay of valley and spin in second-order nonlinear transport, opening avenues for promising device applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

[1]

D. Xiao, W. Yao, and Q. Niu, Valley-contrasting physics in graphene: magnetic moment and topological transport, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 236809 (2007)

2007
[2]

J. R. Schaibley, H. Yu, G. Clark, P. Rivera, J. S. Ross, K. L. Seyler, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Valleytronics in 2D materials, Nat. Rev. Mater. 1, 1 (2016)

work page 2016
[3]

L. Li, L. Shao, X. Liu, A. Gao, H. Wang, B. Zheng, G. Hou, K. Shehzad, L. Yu, and F. Miao, Room-temperature valleytronic transistor, Nat. Nanotechnol. 15, 743 (2020)

work page 2020
[4]

K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V . Morozov, D.-e. Jiang, Y . Zhang, S. V . Dubonos, I. V . Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films, science 306, 666 (2004)

work page 2004
[5]

A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, The electronic properties of graphene, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 109 (2009)

work page 2009
[6]

A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, The rise of graphene, Nat. Mater. 6, 183 (2007)

2007
[7]

Tombros, C

N. Tombros, C. Jozsa, M. Popinciuc, H. T. Jonkman, and B. J. Van Wees, Electronic spin transport and spin precession in single graphene layers at room temperature, Nature 448, 571 (2007)

work page 2007
[8]

Han and R

W. Han and R. K. Kawakami, Spin relaxation in single -layer and bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 047207 (2011)

work page 2011

Show all 50 references

[9]

J. Xu, S. Singh, J. Katoch, G. Wu, T. Zhu, I. Žutić, and R. K. Kawakami, Spin inversion in graphene spin valves by gate -tunable magnetic proximity effect at one -dimensional contacts, Nat. Commun. 9, 2869 (2018)

2018
[10]

W. Yao, D. Xiao, and Q. Niu, Valley-dependent optoelectronics from inversion symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. B 77, 235406 (2008)

2008
[11]

H. Zeng, J. Dai, W. Yao, D. Xiao, and X. Cui, Valley polarization in MoS2 monolayers by optical pumping, Nat. Nanotechnol. 7, 490 (2012)

2012
[12]

K. F. Mak, K. He, J. Shan, and T. F. Heinz, Control of valley polarization in monolayer MoS2 by optical helicity, Nat. Nanotechnol. 7, 494 (2012)

2012
[13]

Y . Li, J. Ludwig, T. Low, A. Chernikov, X. Cui, G. Arefe, Y . D. Kim, A. M. Van Der Zande, A. Rigosi, and H. M. Hill, Valley splitting and polarization by the Zeeman effect in monolayer MoSe2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 266804 (2014)

2014
[14]

MacNeill, C

D. MacNeill, C. Heikes, K. F. Mak, Z. Anderson, A. Kormányos, V . Zólyomi, J. Park, and D. C. Ralph, Breaking of valley degeneracy by magnetic field in monolayer MoSe2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 037401 (2015). 21

2015
[15]

Aivazian, Z

G. Aivazian, Z. Gong, A. M. Jones, R.-L. Chu, J. Yan, D. G. Mandrus, C. Zhang, D. Cobden, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Magnetic control of valley pseudospin in monolayer WSe2, Nat. Phys. 11, 148 (2015)

2015
[16]

Srivastava, M

A. Srivastava, M. Sidler, A. V . Allain, D. S. Lembke, A. Kis, and A. Imamoğlu, Valley Zeeman effect in elementary optical excitations of monolayer WSe2, Nat. Phys. 11, 141 (2015)

2015
[17]

K. F. Mak, K. L. McGill, J. Park, and P. L. McEuen, The valley Hall effect in MoS 2 transistors, Science 344, 1489 (2014)

2014
[18]

M. Sui, G. Chen, L. Ma, W.-Y . Shan, D. Tian, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, X. Jin, W. Yao, and D. Xiao, Gate-tunable topological valley transport in bilayer graphene, Nat. Phys. 11, 1027 (2015)

2015
[19]

Shimazaki, M

Y . Shimazaki, M. Yamamoto, I. V . Borzenets, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and S. Tarucha, Generation and detection of pure valley current by electrically induced Berry curvature in bilayer graphene, Nat. Phys. 11, 1032 (2015)

2015
[20]

Qin, P.-F

M.-S. Qin, P.-F. Zhu, X.-G. Ye, W.-Z. Xu, Z.-H. Song, J. Liang, K. Liu, and Z. -M. Liao, Strain tunable Berry curvature dipole, orbital magnetization and nonlinear Hall effect in WSe2 monolayer, Chin. Phys. Lett. 38, 017301 (2021)

2021
[21]

Gao, Y .-F

A. Gao, Y .-F. Liu, J.-X. Qiu, B. Ghosh, T. V . Trevisan, Y . Onishi, C. Hu, T. Qian, H.-J. Tien, and S. -W. Chen, Quantum metric nonlinear Hall effect in a topological antiferromagnetic heterostructure, Science 381, 181 (2023)

2023
[22]

N. Wang, D. Kaplan, Z. Zhang, T. Holder, N. Cao, A. Wang, X. Zhou, F. Zhou, Z. Jiang, and C. Zhang, Quantum -metric-induced nonlinear transport in a topological antiferromagnet, Nature 621, 487 (2023)

2023
[23]

Isobe, S.-Y

H. Isobe, S.-Y . Xu, and L. Fu, High-frequency rectification via chiral Bloch electrons, Sci. Adv. 6, eaay2497 (2020)

2020
[24]

H. Yu, Y . Wu, G.-B. Liu, X. Xu, and W. Yao, Nonlinear valley and spin currents from Fermi pocket anisotropy in 2D crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 156603 (2014)

2014
[25]

J. Duan, Y . Jian, Y . Gao, H. Peng, J. Zhong, Q. Feng, J. Mao, and Y . Yao, Giant second- order nonlinear Hall effect in twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 186801 (2022)

2022
[26]

P. He, G. K. W. Koon, H. Isobe, J. Y . Tan, J. Hu, A. H. C. Neto, L. Fu, and H. Yang, Graphene moiré superlattices with giant quantum nonlinearity of chiral Bloch electrons, Nat. Nanotechnol. 17, 378 (2022)

2022
[27]

Huang, Z

M. Huang, Z. Wu, X. Zhang, X. Feng, Z. Zhou, S. Wang, Y . Chen, C. Cheng, K. Sun, and Z. Y . Meng, Intrinsic nonlinear Hall effect and gate -switchable Berry curvature sliding in twisted bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 066301 (2023)

2023
[28]

I. J. Vera-Marun, V . Ranjan, and B. J. Van Wees, Nonlinear detection of spin currents in graphene with non-magnetic electrodes, Nat. Phys. 8, 313 (2012). 22

2012
[29]

T. Ohta, A. Bostwick, T. Seyller, K. Horn, and E. Rotenberg, Controlling the electronic structure of bilayer graphene, Science 313, 951 (2006)

2006
[30]

Zhang, T.-T

Y . Zhang, T.-T. Tang, C. Girit, Z. Hao, M. C. Martin, A. Zettl, M. F. Crommie, Y . R. Shen, and F. Wang, Direct observation of a widely tunable bandgap in bilayer graphene, Nature 459, 820 (2009)

2009
[31]

McCann and M

E. McCann and M. Koshino, The electronic properties of bilayer graphene, Rep. Prog. Phys. 76, 056503 (2013)

2013
[32]

J. Yin, C. Tan, D. Barcons-Ruiz, I. Torre, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. C. Song, J. Hone, and F. H. Koppens, Tunable and giant valley-selective Hall effect in gapped bilayer graphene, Science 375, 1398 (2022)

2022
[33]

K. Kang, T. Li, E. Sohn, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Nonlinear anomalous Hall effect in few- layer WTe2, Nat. Mater. 18, 324 (2019)

2019
[34]

Ma, S.-Y

Q. Ma, S.-Y . Xu, H. Shen, D. MacNeill, V . Fatemi, T.-R. Chang, A. M. Mier Valdivia, S. Wu, Z. Du, and C. -H. Hsu, Observation of the nonlinear Hall effect under time -reversal- symmetric conditions, Nature 565, 337 (2019)

2019
[35]

X.-G. Ye, H. Liu, P. -F. Zhu, W.-Z. Xu, S. A. Yang, N. Shang, K. Liu, and Z. -M. Liao, Control over Berry curvature dipole with electric field in WTe 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 016301 (2023)

2023
[36]

Kumar, C.-H

D. Kumar, C.-H. Hsu, R. Sharma, T.-R. Chang, P. Yu, J. Wang, G. Eda, G. Liang, and H. Yang, Room-temperature nonlinear Hall effect and wireless radiofrequency rectification in Weyl semimetal TaIrTe4, Nat. Nanotechnol. 16, 421 (2021)

2021
[37]

Das Sarma, S

S. Das Sarma, S. Adam, E. Hwang, and E. Rossi, Electronic transport in two-dimensional graphene, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 407 (2011)

2011
[38]

Z. Du, C. Wang, S. Li, H.-Z. Lu, and X. Xie, Disorder-induced nonlinear Hall effect with time-reversal symmetry, Nat. Commun. 10, 3047 (2019)

2019
[39]

Gorbachev, F

R. Gorbachev, F. Tikhonenko, A. Mayorov, D. Horsell, and A. Savchenko, Weak localisation in bilayer graphene, Phys. E: Low-Dimens. Syst. Nanostructures 40, 1360 (2008)

2008
[40]

Z. Fei, B. Huang, P. Malinowski, W. Wang, T. Song, J. Sanchez, W. Yao, D. Xiao, X. Zhu, and A. F. May, Two-dimensional itinerant ferromagnetism in atomically thin Fe 3GeTe2, Nat. Mater. 17, 778 (2018)

2018
[41]

Y . Deng, Y . Yu, Y . Song, J. Zhang, N. Z. Wang, Z. Sun, Y . Yi, Y . Z. Wu, S. Wu, and J. Zhu, Gate-tunable room-temperature ferromagnetism in two-dimensional Fe3GeTe2, Nature 563, 94 (2018)

2018
[42]

C. Tan, J. Lee, S.-G. Jung, T. Park, S. Albarakati, J. Partridge, M. R. Field, D. G. McCulloch, L. Wang, and C. Lee, Hard magnetic properties in nanoflake van der Waals Fe 3GeTe2, Nat. Commun. 9, 1554 (2018). 23

2018
[43]

X. He, C. Zhang, D. Zheng, P. Li, J. Q. Xiao, and X. Zhang, Nonlocal Spin Valves Based on Graphene/Fe3GeTe2 van der Waals Heterostructures, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 15, 9649 (2023)

2023
[44]

H. Pan, C. Zhang, J. Shi, X. Hu, N. Wang, L . An, R. Duan, P. Deb, Z. Liu, and W. Gao, Room-temperature lateral spin valve in graphene/Fe 3GaTe2 van der Waals heterostructures, ACS Mater. Lett. 5, 2226 (2023)

2023
[45]

Jedema, H

F. Jedema, H. Heersche, A. Filip, J. Baselmans, and B. Van Wees, Electrical detection of spin precession in a metallic mesoscopic spin valve, Nature 416, 713 (2002)

2002
[46]

T.-Y . Yang, J. Balakrishnan, F. V olmer, A. Avsar, M. Jaiswal, J. Samm, S. Ali, A. Pachoud, M. Zeng, and M. Popinciuc, Observation of long spin -relaxation times in bilayer graphene at room temperature, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 047206 (2011)

2011
[47]

P. Wei, S. Lee, F. Lemaitre, L. Pinel, D. Cutaia, W. Cha, F. Katmis, Y . Zhu, D. Heiman, and J. Hone, Strong interfacial exchange field in the graphene/EuS heterostructure, Nat. Mater. 15, 711 (2016)

2016
[48]

Zhang, Y .-W

Y . Zhang, Y .-W. Tan, H. L. Stormer, and P. Kim, Experimental observation of the quantum Hall effect and Berry's phase in graphene, Nature 438, 201 (2005)

2005
[49]

K. S. Novoselov, E. McCann, S. Morozov, V . I. Fal’ko, M. Katsnelson, U. Zeitler, D. Jiang, F. Schedin, and A. Geim, Unconventional quantum Hall effect and Berry ’s phase of 2π in bilayer graphene, Nat. Phys. 2, 177 (2006)

2006
[50]

Jonson and G

M. Jonson and G. Mahan, Mott's formula for the thermopower and the Wiedemann-Franz law, Phys. Rev. B 21, 4223 (1980)

1980

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

D. Xiao, W. Yao, and Q. Niu, Valley-contrasting physics in graphene: magnetic moment and topological transport, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 236809 (2007)

2007

[2] [2]

J. R. Schaibley, H. Yu, G. Clark, P. Rivera, J. S. Ross, K. L. Seyler, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Valleytronics in 2D materials, Nat. Rev. Mater. 1, 1 (2016)

work page 2016

[3] [3]

L. Li, L. Shao, X. Liu, A. Gao, H. Wang, B. Zheng, G. Hou, K. Shehzad, L. Yu, and F. Miao, Room-temperature valleytronic transistor, Nat. Nanotechnol. 15, 743 (2020)

work page 2020

[4] [4]

K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V . Morozov, D.-e. Jiang, Y . Zhang, S. V . Dubonos, I. V . Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films, science 306, 666 (2004)

work page 2004

[5] [5]

A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, The electronic properties of graphene, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 109 (2009)

work page 2009

[6] [6]

A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, The rise of graphene, Nat. Mater. 6, 183 (2007)

2007

[7] [7]

Tombros, C

N. Tombros, C. Jozsa, M. Popinciuc, H. T. Jonkman, and B. J. Van Wees, Electronic spin transport and spin precession in single graphene layers at room temperature, Nature 448, 571 (2007)

work page 2007

[8] [8]

Han and R

W. Han and R. K. Kawakami, Spin relaxation in single -layer and bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 047207 (2011)

work page 2011