Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Broad-band THz emission by Spin-to-Charge Conversion in Topological Material -- Ferromagnet Heterostructures

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that in topological-material/ferromagnet bilayers, the thickness trend of spin-to-charge conversion depends on interface quality, so thickness measurements alone cannot distinguish inverse spin Hall from inverse…

desk verdict Useful new THz-emission data on topological-material|ferromagnet bilayers, but the thickness-dependence argument needs a pump-absorption check and the abstract overstates NbP efficiency. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14838 v1 pith:QMPOAAJ4 submitted 2025-07-20 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Xingyue Han , Xiong Yao , Tilak Ram Thapaliya , Genaro Bierhance , Chihun In , Zhuoliang Ni , Amilcar Bedoya-Pinto , Sunxiang Huang
show 5 more authors
Claudia Felser Stuart S. P. Parkin Tobias Kampfrath Seongshik Oh Liang Wu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords terahertzemissionspectroscopyspin-to-chargeconversiontopologicalinsulatorWeylsemimetalinversespinHalleffectRashba–EdelsteinBi2Se3NbP
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 studies ultrafast spin-to-charge conversion (SCC) in topological-material/ferromagnet bilayers by time-domain terahertz emission spectroscopy. It separates the emitted signal into a field-antisymmetric SCC part and a field-symmetric shift-current part, and tracks both as the topological layer thickness changes. The central finding is that the SCC-versus-thickness trend is not fixed: in-situ grown Bi2Se3 layers show a nonmonotonic trend peaking near 16 QL, while ex-situ (air-exposed) samples show suppressed and inconsistent signals. The paper concludes that thickness dependence alone is not a reliable fingerprint for distinguishing inverse spin Hall effect from inverse Rashba–Edelstein effect, and that in-situ growth and composition control are what determine efficient SCC. It also reports that NbP|permalloy (a Weyl semimetal bilayer) emits THz at about one-fifth the efficiency of Bi2Se3|CoFeB, with spectra extending to about 8 THz.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the azimuthal-angle decomposition of the emitted THz peak signal into a field-antisymmetric SCC term and a field-symmetric threefold shift-current term. Under a static field $\vec{B}$ along $\hat{y}$, the spin current $\vec{j}_s$ along $\hat{z}$ with polarization $\vec{\sigma}$ along $\hat{y}$ produces SCC emission fixed along $\hat{x}$ with no azimuthal dependence, while the Bi2Se3 surface shift current follows $\sin[3(\phi-\phi_0)]$. Fitting the measured peak signal versus sample azimuth to Eqs. 1 and 2 separates the two channels, and THz transmission and impedance measurements convert emitted fields into transverse sheet currents. This decomposition is what allows the paper to track SCC and shift current separately as functions of TI thickness, composition, and growth condition.

What would settle it

Apply the static field along the x direction instead of y on an in-situ Bi2Se3(16 QL)|CoFeB sample while detecting the x-polarized THz field: SCC predicts the emission direction rotates to y and the x component vanishes, leaving only the threefold shift current. A detectable field-antisymmetric x component in that geometry would reveal a magnetic-field-dependent channel beyond SCC, invalidating the decomposition behind the thickness-comparison conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the magnetic-field-antisymmetric THz signal in Bi2Se3|CoFeB bilayers is a direct measure of SCC, while the field-symmetric part is a threefold-symmetric shift current from the Bi2Se3 surface. Using an azimuthal-angle decomposition $S_{\pm B}(\phi)=\pm S_{\mathrm{SCC}}+S_{\mathrm{shift}}\sin[3(\phi-\phi_0)]$ and the corresponding zero-field form, the authors find that the SCC component varies nonmonotonically with Bi2Se3 thickness, peaking near 16 QL, whereas the shift current is nearly thickness independent. In air-exposed ex-situ samples, the SCC signal is strongly reduced and the thickness trend becomes inconsistent. From this they conclude that the thickness dependence of SCC is controlled by interface quality, so thickness trends by themselves cannot distinguish bulk inverse spin Hall from interfacial inverse Rashba–Edelstein conversion; both mechanisms likely contribute. They additionally show that (Bi1−xSbx)2Te3|CoFeB emission is weakest near x≈0.9, where the bare TI is near charge neutrality, and that Pb-doped (bulk-insulating) Bi2Se3 emits much less than bulk-conducting Bi2Se3.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the field-antisymmetric THz signal is entirely spin-to-charge conversion and the field-symmetric signal is entirely surface shift current, with no other magnetic-field-dependent channel contributing; the paper does not independently measure either component in the bilayers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • THz emission efficiency of Bi2Se3|CoFeB is not governed by TI thickness alone; in-situ growth that avoids surface oxidation is required for high spin-to-charge conversion.
  • In (Bi1−xSbx)2Te3|CoFeB, SCC efficiency varies strongly with Sb content and is minimized near x≈0.9, where the bare TI sits near charge neutrality; Pb-doped bulk-insulating Bi2Se3 likewise shows suppressed emission.
  • The Weyl semimetal NbP, in a NbP|Py bilayer, can act as a spin-to-charge conversion layer with THz emission efficiency about one-fifth that of Bi2Se3|CoFeB.
  • Both TI|FM and WSM|FM heterostructures emit THz pulses with spectral weight from roughly 0.2 to 8.3 THz, comparable to established spin-Hall emitters.
  • Thickness-dependence studies alone cannot be used to claim a particular SCC mechanism; interface preparation and composition must be controlled and reported.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, this result implies that previously published thickness trends in TI-based THz emitters should be re-read with attention to sample history, since air exposure alone changes the extracted SCC trend.
  • A testable extension would be a controlled oxidation series: identical Bi2Se3 thickness with different air-exposure times before capping, compared against surface-sensitive probes, to quantify how interface oxidation suppresses spin injection.
  • The NbP|Py result suggests that other Weyl semimetals with stronger Berry-curvature effects might outperform this emitter, but the paper does not claim that.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports time-domain THz emission spectroscopy of ferromagnet/topological-material heterostructures, including Bi2Se3, Pb-doped Bi2Se3, (Bi1-xSbx)2Te3, and the Weyl semimetal NbP. The authors decompose the measured signal into a magnetic-field-odd term attributed to spin-to-charge conversion (SCC) and a field-even term attributed to a shift current, using azimuthal fits described by Eqs. (1) and (2). They compare SCC amplitudes as a function of Bi2Se3 thickness for in-situ and ex-situ prepared samples, study composition dependence of (Bi,Sb)2Te3, and demonstrate broadband emission up to about 8 THz from both TI and WSM bilayers. The central claim is that the thickness dependence of SCC changes with interface quality, so thickness trends alone are not a reliable way to distinguish inverse spin Hall effect from inverse Rashba-Edelstein effect, and that in-situ growth and proper composition are essential for efficient SCC.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper delivers a useful caution against reading TI thickness trends as a mechanism fingerprint and extends spintronic THz emission to Weyl semimetal/ferromagnet bilayers. The authors should be credited for a clear symmetry decomposition, for correcting the detected THz signal by the stack impedance when extracting sheet currents, for including two nominally identical samples at several thicknesses in the in-situ series (Fig. 2d), and for correcting the broadband spectra by the GaP detector response (Fig. 5b). The main limitation is that the reported SCC amplitudes are not normalized by the pump power actually absorbed in the CoFeB spin source, and several key series consist of single samples without error bars; these issues currently weaken the quantitative support for the central thickness-dependent and interface-dependent claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [§Results (Figs. 2d, 3b)] The central thickness comparison is based on emitted THz amplitudes measured at a fixed incident pump power of 7 mW at 0.8 eV, without normalization to the pump power absorbed in the 4-nm CoFeB spin source. Varying the Bi2Se3 thickness from 6 to 64 QL changes the optical interference in the CoFeB/Bi2Se3/sapphire stack, and ex-situ surface oxidation changes the interface reflectance; both effects can alter the absorbed fraction in CoFeB and mimic the nonmonotonic peak near 16 QL or the strong suppression in ex-situ samples. The impedance correction described in the text corrects the detection/outcoupling side only, not the excitation side. The authors should measure or model the absorbed pump fraction as a function of thickness and surface condition, or normalize the extracted SCC amplitudes by that fraction.
  2. [§Results (Fig. 3b)] In the ex-situ Bi2Se3 thickness series, only the d = 16 QL point is averaged over two samples; the points at d = 6, 32, and 64 QL each come from a single sample and carry no error bars. Given the large batch-to-batch variation shown in Fig. 3a, the conclusion that interface quality changes the thickness dependence is under-supported. Replication of at least the key thicknesses is needed before this central claim can be considered robust.
  3. [§Results (Figs. 4b, 4c)] The composition dependence of (Bi1-xSbx)2Te3 and the Pb-doped Bi2Se3 comparison are based on one sample per composition without error bars and without normalization by absorbed pump power. Since the optical constants and therefore the pump absorption in the CoFeB layer vary with Sb fraction and Pb doping, the minimum near x = 0.9 and the suppression in Pb-Bi2Se3 could partly reflect absorption changes rather than genuine SCC changes. The statement that the same trend is observed at 0.2 eV is not supported by shown data, so it cannot serve as a control in its current form.
  4. [§Results (Fig. 5)] The claim that NbP|Py emits about one-fifth as efficiently as in-situ Bi2Se3|CoFeB is based on a single NbP sample and raw waveform amplitudes, with no error bars and no correction for pump absorption differences between the two stacks. The comparison also uses different ferromagnets (Py vs CoFeB) and different film thicknesses. At present this result should be presented as a proof-of-principle demonstration; the quantitative efficiency ratio is not established without additional samples and a common normalization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Summary] In the Summary, 'spin to charger conversion' should read 'spin to charge conversion'.
  2. [Eq. (2) and Fig. 2c] The zero-field fit introduces an offset phi0' for the remanent magnetization direction; please state whether the magnetization was independently characterized or whether phi0' is a free parameter, and show fit residuals or parameter values to demonstrate that the two-offset model is not overfitting.
  3. [Figs. 2d and 3b] The main text does not explicitly state how many independent growths were used for each thickness in the in-situ series. Please state this in the text rather than only in the figure caption, and clarify whether the two-sample average in Fig. 2d applies to every thickness.
  4. [Comparison with Ref. [9]] When contrasting the present thickness trend with the monotonic decrease reported in the previous Bi2Se3|Co study, please note explicitly that the previous work used Co rather than CoFeB and different growth conditions, since these differences are part of the interface-quality argument.
  5. [Data availability] The data availability statement says that all data are in the paper and additional data may be requested. For reproducibility, providing the raw time-domain waveforms and azimuthal scans in a repository would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SCC and shift-current amplitudes are empirical symmetry-decomposition fits, and the central thickness/interface-quality conclusion is a comparison of measured trends, not a prediction forced by the model's inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical comparisons: the B-odd THz component (assigned to SCC) and the B-even threefold component (assigned to shift current) are obtained by fitting the measured azimuthal traces to Eqs. (1)-(2). These fitted amplitudes are reported as functions of Bi2Se3 thickness and growth condition; they are not predictions that assume the conclusion. The claim that thickness dependence varies with interface quality follows from contrasting in-situ and ex-situ series (Figs. 2d and 3b), i.e., from comparing independently measured waveforms, not from a parameter that was defined to produce that contrast. The THz-impedance corrections are experimental calibrations; references to the authors' earlier papers (Refs. 34, 40, 41, 43) are for setup details and do not supply any load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The decomposition's validity rests on the symmetry assumptions stated in Eqs. (1)-(2) (e.g., that the odd component is azimuthally isotropic and the even component threefold), which is a modeling assumption rather than circular reasoning. The possible lack of normalization to absorbed pump power is a measurement-validity concern, not a reduction of the claim to its inputs. No step in the derivation chain is equivalent by construction to its own inputs.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities such as particles, fields, or conserved quantities. It relies on established effects, including spin-to-charge conversion and shift current, and on a set of symmetry and interface assumptions that are stated or cited in the text. The only fitted quantities are amplitudes and phase offsets in the azimuthal decomposition, and the largest interpretive leap is treating air exposure as oxidation without direct chemical evidence.

free parameters (4)
  • SSCC (SCC contribution amplitude) = not reported
    Free amplitude in the azimuthal fits of Eqs. 1 and 2; the thickness and composition trends in Figs. 2d, 3b, and 4 depend on these fitted values.
  • Sshift (shift current amplitude) = not reported
    Free amplitude in the same fits; used to separate the field-symmetric contribution attributed to shift current.
  • phi0 (crystal axis offset) = not reported
    Fit parameter in Eqs. 1 and 2 capturing the alignment between crystal axes and laboratory frame.
  • phi0_prime (remanent magnetization offset) = not reported
    Fit parameter in Eq. 2 for zero-field azimuthal data, capturing the remanent magnetization direction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The CoFeB layer acts as an ultrafast spin current source under optical excitation.
    Required for the field-antisymmetric THz signal to be attributed to spin-to-charge conversion; taken from prior literature (refs 7, 22, 23) rather than directly demonstrated with a dedicated spin-source-only control.
  • domain assumption The SCC emission direction is given by js x sigma and is azimuthally independent under an applied in-plane field.
    Used to write Eq. 1 with an azimuthally constant SSCC term; assumes the standard spin-current geometry and that no other azimuthal dependence enters the SCC channel.
  • domain assumption The field-symmetric THz signal is entirely a surface shift current with threefold azimuthal symmetry.
    Used to decompose signals in Eqs. 1 and 2 based on refs 42 and 43; no independent measurement of the shift-current component in the bilayer is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Air exposure of the topological insulator surface before capping causes oxidation that suppresses SCC.
    Explanation for the ex-situ versus in-situ emission differences; the paper reports no XPS or other direct chemical characterization of the interface.
  • domain assumption The chemical potential of (Bi,Sb)2Te3 moves through charge neutrality near x approximately 0.9.
    Used to interpret the emission minimum in Fig. 4b as a composition or chemical-potential effect (refs 49 to 53); the authors note the FM layer may shift the Fermi level, leaving the correlation uncertain.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Broad-band THz emission by Spin-to-Charge Conversion in Topological Material -- Ferromagnet Heterostructures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QMPOAAJ4

@misc{pith2026250714838,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Broad-band THz emission by Spin-to-Charge Conversion in Topological Material -- Ferromagnet Heterostructures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QMPOAAJ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14838}
}
abstract

Terahertz spintronic devices combine ultrafast operation with low power consumption, making them strong candidates for next-generation memory technologies. In this study, we use time-domain terahertz emission spectroscopy to investigate spin-to-charge conversion (SCC) in bilayer heterostructures comprising topological insulators (TIs) or Weyl semimetals (WSMs) with ferromagnetic metals (FMs). SCC is studied in TI materials \ce{Bi2Se3}, Pb-doped \ce{Bi2Se3}, and (Bi$_{1-x}$Sb$_x$)$_2$Te$_3$, and the WSM NbP. Our results reveal that the dependence of SCC on TI thickness varies with interface quality, indicating that thickness dependence alone is not a reliable criterion for distinguishing between inverse spin Hall effect and the inverse Rashba--Edelstein effect mechanisms. We find efficient SCC in TIs depends on both \textit{in-situ} growth to prevent surface oxidation and proper composition. In NbP$\vert$FM bilayers, we observe THz emission with efficiency and bandwidth comparable to that of TIs, highlighting the broader potential of topological materials. Finally, broadband spectral measurements demonstrate that both TIs and WSMs can generate THz pulses with frequencies extending up to 8\,THz. These findings underscore the promise of topological materials as efficient platforms for ultrafast, broadband spintronic applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14838 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a for representative Bi2Se3(16 QL)|CoFeB(4 nm) samples. Notably, the two ex-situ samples were grown in separate batches and exhibit large variations in a b 30 20 10 0 -10 Signal (a.u.) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Delay Time(ps) BS|CFB in-situ #1 BS|CFB in-situ #2 BS|CFB ex-situ #1 BS|CFB ex-situ #2 Pt|CFB 10 Signal (a.u.) 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Bi 2Se3 thickness (QL) SCC shift 20 10 Current (a.u.) 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Bi 2Se3 thickne… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Z uti \'c , author J

    author author I. Z uti \'c , author J. Fabian , \ and\ author S. D. \ Sarma ,\ @noop journal journal Reviews of modern physics \ volume 76 ,\ pages 323 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Dieny , author I

    author author B. Dieny , author I. L. \ Prejbeanu , author K. Garello , author P. Gambardella , author P. Freitas , author R. Lehndorff , author W. Raberg , author U. Ebels , author S. O. \ Demokritov , author J. Akerman , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nature Electronics \ volume 3 ,\ pages 446 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Han , author Y

    author author W. Han , author Y. Otani , \ and\ author S. Maekawa ,\ @noop journal journal npj Quantum Materials \ volume 3 ,\ pages 27 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    author author J. R. \ S \'a nchez , author L. Vila , author G. Desfonds , author S. Gambarelli , author J. Attan \'e , author J. De Teresa , author C. Mag \'e n , \ and\ author A. Fert ,\ @noop journal journal Nature communications \ volume 4 ,\ pages 2944 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Sinova , author S

    author author J. Sinova , author S. O. \ Valenzuela , author J. Wunderlich , author C. Back , \ and\ author T. Jungwirth ,\ @noop journal journal Reviews of modern physics \ volume 87 ,\ pages 1213 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    author author V. M. \ Edelstein ,\ @noop journal journal Solid State Communications \ volume 73 ,\ pages 233 ( year 1990 ) NoStop

    work page 1990

  7. [7]

    Seifert , author S

    author author T. Seifert , author S. Jaiswal , author U. Martens , author J. Hannegan , author L. Braun , author P. Maldonado , author F. Freimuth , author A. Kronenberg , author J. Henrizi , author I. Radu , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nature photonics \ volume 10 ,\ pages 483 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    \ Zhu , author B

    author author L.-G. \ Zhu , author B. Kubera , author K. Fai Mak , \ and\ author J. Shan ,\ @noop journal journal Scientific reports \ volume 5 ,\ pages 10308 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    work page 2015

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Wang , author L

    author author X. Wang , author L. Cheng , author D. Zhu , author Y. Wu , author M. Chen , author Y. Wang , author D. Zhao , author C. B. \ Boothroyd , author Y. M. \ Lam , author J.-X. \ Zhu , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Advanced Materials \ volume 30 ,\ pages 1802356 ( ye...

    2018

  2. [10]

    Wang , author D

    author author Y. Wang , author D. Zhu , author Y. Wu , author Y. Yang , author J. Yu , author R. Ramaswamy , author R. Mishra , author S. Shi , author M. Elyasi , author K.-L. \ Teo , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nature communications \ volume 8 ,\ pages 1364 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  3. [11]

    author author M. A. \ Noyan , author X. Zhang , author J. Moon , author E. Cobas , author M. Lohmann , author Q. Zou , author L. Li , author M. Weinert , author B. T. \ Jonker , author O. M. \ van ‘t Erve , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nano Letters \ ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025

  4. [12]

    Shiomi , author K

    author author Y. Shiomi , author K. Nomura , author Y. Kajiwara , author K. Eto , author M. Novak , author K. Segawa , author Y. Ando , \ and\ author E. Saitoh ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.196601 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 113 ,\ pages 196601 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    doi

  5. [13]

    author author A. R. \ Mellnik , author J. Lee , author A. Richardella , author J. L. \ Grab , author P. J. \ Mintun , author M. H. \ Fischer , author A. Vaezi , author A. Manchon , author E.-A. \ Kim , author N. Samarth , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nature \ volume 511 ,\ ...

    2014

  6. [14]

    Wang , author J

    author author H. Wang , author J. Kally , author J. S. \ Lee , author T. Liu , author H. Chang , author D. R. \ Hickey , author K. A. \ Mkhoyan , author M. Wu , author A. Richardella , \ and\ author N. Samarth ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.076601 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. ...

    doi

  7. [15]

    author author J. S. \ Lee , author A. Richardella , author D. R. \ Hickey , author K. A. \ Mkhoyan , \ and\ author N. Samarth ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 92 ,\ pages 155312 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  8. [16]

    Deorani , author J

    author author P. Deorani , author J. Son , author K. Banerjee , author N. Koirala , author M. Brahlek , author S. Oh , \ and\ author H. Yang ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 90 ,\ pages 094403 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014

  9. [17]

    Jamali , author J

    author author M. Jamali , author J. S. \ Lee , author J. S. \ Jeong , author F. Mahfouzi , author Y. Lv , author Z. Zhao , author B. K. \ Nikolic , author K. A. \ Mkhoyan , author N. Samarth , \ and\ author J.-P. \ Wang ,\ @noop journal journal Nano letters \ volume 15 ,\ page...

    2015

  10. [18]

    Wang , author J

    author author H. Wang , author J. Kally , author C. Sahin , author T. Liu , author W. Yanez , author E. J. \ Kamp , author A. Richardella , author M. Wu , author M. E. \ Flatt \'e , \ and\ author N. Samarth ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review research \ volume 1 ,\ pages ...

    2019

  11. [19]

    Sahu , author Y

    author author P. Sahu , author Y. Yang , author Y. Fan , author H. Jaffr \`e s , author J.-Y. \ Chen , author X. Devaux , author Y. Fagot-Revurat , author S. Migot , author E. Rongione , author T. Chen , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces \ volu...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Shi , author E

    author author S. Shi , author E. Liu , author F. Hu , author G. Shi , author A. Manchon , \ and\ author H. Yang ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 111 ,\ pages 094433 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025

  13. [21]

    Ni , author K

    author author Z. Ni , author K. Wang , author Y. Zhang , author O. Pozo , author B. Xu , author X. Han , author K. Manna , author J. Paglione , author C. Felser , author A. G. \ Grushin , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nature communications \ volume 12 ,\ pages 1 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021

  14. [22]

    Rouzegar , author L

    author author R. Rouzegar , author L. Brandt , author L. N \'a dvorn \' k , author D. A. \ Reiss , author A. L. \ Chekhov , author O. Gueckstock , author C. In , author M. Wolf , author T. S. \ Seifert , author P. W. \ Brouwer , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review ...

    2022

  15. [23]

    Beaurepaire , author G

    author author E. Beaurepaire , author G. Turner , author S. Harrel , author M. Beard , author J.-Y. \ Bigot , \ and\ author C. Schmuttenmaer ,\ @noop journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 84 ,\ pages 3465 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004

  16. [24]

    Zhang , author J

    author author J. Zhang , author J. P. \ Velev , author X. Dang , \ and\ author E. Y. \ Tsymbal ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 94 ,\ pages 014435 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  17. [25]

    Culcer , author E

    author author D. Culcer , author E. H. \ Hwang , author T. D. \ Stanescu , \ and\ author S. Das Sarma ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.82.155457 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 82 ,\ pages 155457 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    author author S. V. \ Eremeev , author V. N. \ Men'shov , author V. V. \ Tugushev , author P. M. \ Echenique , \ and\ author E. V. \ Chulkov ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.144430 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 88 ,\ pages 144430 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    doi

  19. [27]

    Luo \ and\ author X.-L

    author author W. Luo \ and\ author X.-L. \ Qi ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.085431 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 87 ,\ pages 085431 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    \ Hsu , author K

    author author Y.-T. \ Hsu , author K. Park , \ and\ author E.-A. \ Kim ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.235433 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 96 ,\ pages 235433 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    author author C. D. \ Spataru \ and\ author F. L \'e onard ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 90 ,\ pages 085115 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014

  22. [30]

    Yan \ and\ author C

    author author B. Yan \ and\ author C. Felser ,\ @noop journal journal Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics \ volume 8 ,\ pages 337 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  23. [31]

    Wan , author A

    author author X. Wan , author A. M. \ Turner , author A. Vishwanath , \ and\ author S. Y. \ Savrasov ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics \ volume 83 ,\ pages 205101 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011

  24. [32]

    Armitage , author E

    author author N. Armitage , author E. Mele , \ and\ author A. Vishwanath ,\ @noop journal journal Reviews of Modern Physics \ volume 90 ,\ pages 015001 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  25. [33]

    Sun , author Y

    author author Y. Sun , author Y. Zhang , author C. Felser , \ and\ author B. Yan ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 117 ,\ pages 146403 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  26. [34]

    Han , author A

    author author X. Han , author A. Markou , author J. Stensberg , author Y. Sun , author C. Felser , \ and\ author L. Wu ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 105 ,\ pages 174406 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022

  27. [35]

    Manna , author L

    author author K. Manna , author L. Muechler , author T.-H. \ Kao , author R. Stinshoff , author Y. Zhang , author J. Gooth , author N. Kumar , author G. Kreiner , author K. Koepernik , author R. Car , author J. K\"ubler , author G. H. \ Fecher , author C. Shekhar , author Y. S...

    doi

  28. [36]

    Liu , author Y

    author author E. Liu , author Y. Sun , author N. Kumar , author L. Muechler , author A. Sun , author L. Jiao , author S.-Y. \ Yang , author D. Liu , author A. Liang , author Q. Xu , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nature physics \ volume 14 ,\ pages 1125 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  29. [37]

    Huang , author T

    author author S. Huang , author T. Chen , \ and\ author C. Chien ,\ @noop journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 92 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008

  30. [38]

    Jen , author Y

    author author S. Jen , author Y. Yao , author Y. Chen , author J. Wu , author C. Lee , author T. Tsai , \ and\ author Y. Chang ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of applied physics \ volume 99 ( year 2006 a ) NoStop

    2006

  31. [39]

    Bedoya-Pinto , author A

    author author A. Bedoya-Pinto , author A. K. \ Pandeya , author D. Liu , author H. Deniz , author K. Chang , author H. Tan , author H. Han , author J. Jena , author I. Kostanovskiy , \ and\ author S. S. \ Parkin ,\ @noop journal journal ACS nano \ volume 14 ,\ pages 4405 ( yea...

    2020

  32. [40]

    Han , author H

    author author X. Han , author H. T. \ Yi , author S. Oh , \ and\ author L. Wu ,\ @noop journal journal Nano Letters \ volume 24 ,\ pages 914 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  33. [41]

    Stensberg , author X

    author author J. Stensberg , author X. Han , author S. Lee , author S. A. \ McGill , author J. Paglione , author I. Takeuchi , author C. L. \ Kane , \ and\ author L. Wu ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 130 ,\ pages 096901 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  34. [42]

    Braun , author G

    author author L. Braun , author G. Mussler , author A. Hruban , author M. Konczykowski , author T. Schumann , author M. Wolf , author M. M \"u nzenberg , author L. Perfetti , \ and\ author T. Kampfrath ,\ @noop journal journal Nature communications \ volume 7 ,\ pages 1 ( year...

    2016

  35. [43]

    Stensberg , author X

    author author J. Stensberg , author X. Han , author Z. Ni , author X. Yao , author X. Yuan , author D. Mallick , author A. Gandhi , author S. Oh , \ and\ author L. Wu ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.109.245112 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 109 ,\ pages 245112 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    doi

  36. [44]

    Jen , author Y

    author author S. Jen , author Y. Yao , author Y. Chen , author J. Wu , author C. Lee , author T. Tsai , \ and\ author Y. Chang ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of applied physics \ volume 99 ( year 2006 b ) NoStop

    2006

  37. [45]

    Wang , author G

    author author X. Wang , author G. Bian , author T. Miller , \ and\ author T.-C. \ Chiang ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.096404 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 108 ,\ pages 096404 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    author author L. V. \ Yashina , author J. S \'a nchez-Barriga , author M. R. \ Scholz , author A. A. \ Volykhov , author A. P. \ Sirotina , author S. Neudachina , Vera , author M. E. \ Tamm , author A. Varykhalov , author D. Marchenko , author G. Springholz , et al. ,\ @noop j...

    2013

  39. [47]

    Yang , author B

    author author J. Yang , author B. Zheng , author Z. Chen , author W. Xu , author R. Wang , \ and\ author H. Xu ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Physical Chemistry C \ volume 124 ,\ pages 6253 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  40. [48]

    author author A. J. \ Green , author S. Dey , author Y. Q. \ An , author B. O'Brien , author S. O'Mullane , author B. Thiel , \ and\ author A. C. \ Diebold ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A \ volume 34 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  41. [49]

    He , author H

    author author X. He , author H. Li , author L. Chen , \ and\ author K. Wu ,\ @noop journal journal Scientific reports \ volume 5 ,\ pages 8830 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  42. [50]

    Kong , author Y

    author author D. Kong , author Y. Chen , author J. J. \ Cha , author Q. Zhang , author J. G. \ Analytis , author K. Lai , author Z. Liu , author S. S. \ Hong , author K. J. \ Koski , author S.-K. \ Mo , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nature nanotechnology \ volume 6 ,\ pages ...

    2011

  43. [51]

    Zhang , author C.-Z

    author author J. Zhang , author C.-Z. \ Chang , author Z. Zhang , author J. Wen , author X. Feng , author K. Li , author M. Liu , author K. He , author L. Wang , author X. Chen , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nature communications \ volume 2 ,\ pages 574 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011

  44. [52]

    He , author T

    author author X. He , author T. Guan , author X. Wang , author B. Feng , author P. Cheng , author L. Chen , author Y. Li , \ and\ author K. Wu ,\ @noop journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 101 ( year 2012 a ) NoStop

    2012

  45. [53]

    He , author T

    author author X. He , author T. Guan , author X. Wang , author B. Feng , author P. Cheng , author L. Chen , author Y. Li , \ and\ author K. Wu ,\ @noop journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 101 ( year 2012 b ) NoStop

    2012

  46. [54]

    Fu ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review letters \ volume 103 ,\ pages 266801 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    author author L. Fu ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review letters \ volume 103 ,\ pages 266801 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

  47. [55]

    Chen , author J

    author author Y. Chen , author J. G. \ Analytis , author J.-H. \ Chu , author Z. Liu , author S.-K. \ Mo , author X.-L. \ Qi , author H. Zhang , author D. Lu , author X. Dai , author Z. Fang , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal science \ volume 325 ,\ pages 178 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

  48. [56]

    Bianchi , author D

    author author M. Bianchi , author D. Guan , author S. Bao , author J. Mi , author B. B. \ Iversen , author P. D. \ King , \ and\ author P. Hofmann ,\ @noop journal journal Nature communications \ volume 1 ,\ pages 128 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  49. [57]

    Pauly , author G

    author author C. Pauly , author G. Bihlmayer , author M. Liebmann , author M. Grob , author A. Georgi , author D. Subramaniam , author M. Scholz , author J. S \'a nchez-Barriga , author A. Varykhalov , author S. Bl \"u gel , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B—Co...

    2012

  50. [58]

    \ Zhu , author G

    author author Z.-H. \ Zhu , author G. Levy , author B. Ludbrook , author C. Veenstra , author J. Rosen , author R. Comin , author D. Wong , author P. Dosanjh , author A. Ubaldini , author P. Syers , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review letters \ volume 107 ,\ pages ...

    2011

  51. [59]

    Wang , author P

    author author E. Wang , author P. Tang , author G. Wan , author A. V. \ Fedorov , author I. Miotkowski , author Y. P. \ Chen , author W. Duan , \ and\ author S. Zhou ,\ @noop journal journal Nano letters \ volume 15 ,\ pages 2031 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  52. [60]

    Souma , author Z

    author author S. Souma , author Z. Wang , author H. Kotaka , author T. Sato , author K. Nakayama , author Y. Tanaka , author H. Kimizuka , author T. Takahashi , author K. Yamauchi , author T. Oguchi , author K. Segawa , \ and\ author Y. Ando ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.161112 journ...

    doi

  53. [61]

    Liu , author L

    author author Z. Liu , author L. Yang , author Y. Sun , author T. Zhang , author H. Peng , author H. Yang , author C. Chen , author Y. f. \ Zhang , author Y. Guo , author D. Prabhakaran , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nature materials \ volume 15 ,\ pages 27 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  54. [62]

    Bedoya-Pinto , author D

    author author A. Bedoya-Pinto , author D. Liu , author H. Tan , author A. K. \ Pandeya , author K. Chang , author J. Zhang , \ and\ author S. S. \ Parkin ,\ @noop journal journal Advanced Materials \ volume 33 ,\ pages 2008634 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021

  55. [63]

    Kampfrath , author J

    author author T. Kampfrath , author J. N \"o tzold , \ and\ author M. Wolf ,\ @noop journal journal Applied physics letters \ volume 90 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007

  56. [64]

    Leitenstorfer , author S

    author author A. Leitenstorfer , author S. Hunsche , author J. Shah , author M. Nuss , \ and\ author W. Knox ,\ @noop journal journal Applied physics letters \ volume 74 ,\ pages 1516 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.