Enhancement of Thermal Spin Transfer Torque via Bandpass Energy Filtering

Abhishek Sharma; Bhaskaran Muralidharan; Pankaj Priyadarshi

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Enhancement of Thermal Spin Transfer Torque via Bandpass Energy Filtering

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An anti-reflective superlattice in a magnetic tunnel junction shapes the transmission into a boxcar bandpass window that boosts the thermal spin transfer torque by nearly five times over a normal superlattice.

desk verdict A solid simulation study of anti-reflective superlattice for thermal spin torque, with a plausible qualitative enhancement but an unverified fivefold claim resting on a single tuned point. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06614 v1 pith:RVWVIVL3 submitted 2019-08-19 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.other

Pankaj Priyadarshi , Abhishek Sharma , Bhaskaran Muralidharan This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.other

keywords thermalspintransfertorqueanti-reflectivesuperlatticemagnetictunneljunctionbandpassenergyfilteringcaloritronicsnon-equilibriumGreen'sfunctionboxcartransmissionmagnetizationswitching

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 argues that an anti-reflective superlattice placed inside a magnetic tunnel junction acts as an energy bandpass filter that can multiply the thermally driven spin transfer torque by roughly five compared with a normal superlattice. The key move is to position the resulting boxcar-shaped transmission window just above the Fermi energy, where it overlaps the positive lobe of the antisymmetric Fermi-function difference produced by a temperature bias. At the optimized well-height parameter $U_{bw} = 0.925$ eV, the boxcar captures the full thermal swing instead of letting positive and negative contributions cancel. If the effect holds in real devices, it offers a voltage-free, energy-efficient route to switch a free ferromagnet's magnetization, a goal relevant for spin caloritronics and magnetic memory.

What carries the argument

The central device element is the anti-reflective superlattice (AR-SL): a normal well-barrier superlattice with two additional half-thickness barriers attached at the ends, implementing the optical anti-reflection-coating analog for electrons. This makes the electronic state at the passband energy a Bloch eigenstate of the central region, suppressing reflection and producing a boxcar-shaped transmission window. The analysis combines a spin-resolved tight-binding NEGF transport model with the Slonczewski spin-current transmission $T(E)_{||}$, and the temperature bias enters through the antisymmetric Fermi-function difference $(f_H - f_C)$, so placing the boxcar above the Fermi energy maximizes the thermal current.

What would settle it

Fabricate an AR-SL MTJ with the stated CoFeB/MgO parameters and measure the thermal spin torque and charge current as a function of $U_{bw}$ at $\Delta T = 10$ K; the claimed mechanism would be falsified if the AR-SL shows no peak near the optimized parameter or fails to exceed the normal-superlattice torque by roughly fivefold when disorder and inelastic scattering are included.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using spin-resolved non-equilibrium Green's function transport calculations for CoFeB/MgO/nonmagnetic-metal superlattice MTJs, the paper reports that adding half-thickness anti-reflective barriers at both ends of the superlattice produces a 'boxcar' transmission feature with near-unity transmissivity in the first miniband. For a 4-barrier structure at $\Delta T = 10$ K and zero bias, both the parallel thermal spin transfer torque and the charge current peak at $U_{bw} = 0.925$ eV, with magnitudes nearly five times those of the normal superlattice. The origin is spectral: the boxcar sits just above the Fermi energy and captures only the positive lobe of $(f_H - f_C)$, eliminating the negative contributions that reduce the normal-superlattice response. The torque magnitude remains symmetric in the sign of $\Delta T$, so reversing the thermal gradient reverses the torque direction without changing its size. The authors conclude this provides a more efficient magnetization-switching mechanism than voltage-driven STT, which suffers electrical losses.

Load-bearing premise

The fivefold enhancement rests on tuning the well height $U_{bw}$ to 0.925 eV so the boxcar transmission captures only the positive lobe of the thermal Fermi window, and it assumes perfectly coherent transport with no disorder or inelastic scattering in the linear-response regime.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

TSTT saturates after about three barriers, so the enhancement can be obtained in a compact device rather than a long superlattice.
Reversing the temperature bias reverses the torque direction while preserving its magnitude, offering bipolar thermal control of magnetization.
Because the boxcar also boosts charge current, the same bandpass design should improve related thermoelectric and spin-caloritronic responses in MTJs.
The voltage-free switching route eliminates electrical losses associated with conventional STT, making thermally assisted magnetization switching a plausible low-power option.

Reading between the lines

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

The bandpass-shaping mechanism is likely transferable to voltage-driven spin torque, where a boxcar transmission could also improve torque efficiency; the paper only demonstrates the thermal case.
The reported ratio is a single optimized point; co-optimizing barrier thickness, well width, and number of barriers under realistic disorder could shift the peak and alter the ratio.
At larger temperature differences the AR-SL response becomes nonlinear, so the fivefold enhancement may be a linear-response result that does not carry over to the pulsed-laser regime the authors suggest for practical switching.

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

Dear [Colleague],

The short version: this is a legitimate simulation paper, not a breakthrough. It takes a known anti-reflective coating idea and applies it to thermal spin transfer torque. The qualitative point—that a boxcar transmission placed over the positive lobe of the Fermi-function difference boosts the thermal torque—is sound and worth stating. But the specific "five times" claim is not yet robust, because the authors compare the two structures at a single tuned operating point and show no sensitivity analysis.

What's genuinely good: the NEGF approach is standard, and the normal-superlattice vs anti-reflective-superlattice comparison uses identical material parameters, which is exactly the right way to isolate the effect. The discussion of why the transmission needs to sit above the Fermi energy for thermal drive (as opposed to voltage drive) is clear and correct. They also honestly note that thermal STT remains much smaller than voltage-driven STT, which keeps the claim honest.

The problem is the headline number. Ubw = 0.925 eV is selected by scanning, and Lw = 0.35 nm is simply picked—Fig. 6 shows that both Is|| and charge current oscillate with Lw, but the paper never establishes that 0.35 nm puts the two structures at comparable phases of those oscillations. If NSL sits near a local minimum while AR-SL sits near a maximum, the fivefold ratio overstates the design benefit. The stress-test note makes this exactly right. It is not a fatal flaw—the AR-SL does appear larger across the plotted Lw range—but it is enough to keep the central quantitative claim provisional. No code, no data, and no error bars make it worse.

The paper also has a few smaller weaknesses: the conclusion's talk of "energy-efficient switching" ignores the practical cost of maintaining a temperature gradient, and the barrier-thickness variation is dismissed rather than studied. Neither undermines the core physics.

Who is this for? Researchers in spin caloritronics or spintronic device simulation. They'll get a clear, well-explained demonstration of a design principle, and a specific number that needs independent verification. I'd send it to peer review—a good referee will push for sensitivity analysis, and the paper will be stronger for it. I just wouldn't treat the fivefold factor as a settled result yet.

Regards.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes to use an anti-reflective superlattice (AR-SL) region in a magnetic tunnel junction to create a 'boxcar' transmission function that enhances the thermal spin transfer torque (TSTT) and charge current under a temperature bias. Using a spin-resolved non-equilibrium Green's function formalism with a Stoner model and including transverse modes in a nanowire geometry, the authors compare a normal superlattice (NSL) and the AR-SL configuration. They report an approximately fivefold enhancement of the parallel TSTT component and of the charge current at a fixed set of parameters (Ubw = 0.925 eV, Lw = 0.35 nm, ΔT = 10 K), and they study variations with the number of barriers and with ΔT. The claim is that the anti-reflective design yields a bandpass transmission that maximizes the overlap with the positive lobe of the Fermi function difference.

Significance. If the fivefold enhancement is robust, this is a conceptually interesting application of bandpass energy filtering to spin caloritronics, with potential relevance for energy-efficient magnetization switching. The NEGF formalism is standard, and the comparison between NSL and AR-SL is made with identical material parameters and simulation setup, which is a strength. The paper also explicitly discusses the position of the transmission function relative to the Fermi energy, and it acknowledges the limitation that the perpendicular torque is not analyzed. However, the central quantitative claim rests on a single tuned operating point, and the manuscript does not yet demonstrate that this operating point is representative or that the enhancement survives parameter uncertainty. The lack of sensitivity analysis currently limits confidence in the headline factor of five.

major comments (2)

[§III-B, §III-C, Figs. 6 and 7] The central fivefold enhancement claim is computed at Lw = 0.35 nm, but Fig. 6 shows that Is|| and I oscillate non-monotonically with Lw for both NSL and AR-SL. The authors do not establish that 0.35 nm corresponds to equivalent favorable phases of the oscillations for the two configurations, nor do they compare the two structures at their respective optimized values of Lw. If 0.35 nm puts NSL near a local minimum and AR-SL near a local maximum, the reported ratio would overstate the benefit of the AR design. Please provide a systematic scan over Lw for both structures and evaluate the enhancement ratio either at each structure's own optimum or over a range of Lw to show that the approximately fivefold factor is robust.
[§III-A, Figs. 3 and 4] The parameter Ubw = 0.925 eV is chosen as the value that maximizes the NSL thermal current, and the same value is then used for AR-SL. The paper does not report a sensitivity analysis around Ubw, and it does not show that the AR-SL enhancement persists for physically realistic uncertainties in the band offset (e.g., layer-to-layer thickness variations or interface composition changes). Because the transmission window position relative to the Fermi energy is the key mechanism, a small shift in Ubw could substantially change the ratio. Please include a sensitivity study of the enhancement factor as a function of Ubw (and, ideally, barrier height and thickness) to support the claim that the enhancement is a property of the AR design rather than a selected parameter point.

minor comments (4)

[§II] The organization statement says 'In section II, we describe the SL configuration...' and then 'The simulation results are presented and discussed in section II.' The results are actually presented in Section III; please correct the section numbering.
[Abstract] There is a typo: 'A “boxcar” transmission feature of resulting from the anti-reﬂective conﬁguration' should read 'A “boxcar” transmission feature resulting from...'.
[Eq. (12)] The symbol SM is used in Eq. (12) but its definition 'SM = I × σ. ˆM' is ambiguous (the multiplication symbol and the dot are not standard). Please clarify the notation, for example by defining SM explicitly in terms of the Pauli vector and the magnetization direction unit vector.
[§III-D, Fig. 8] The authors note that AR-SL shows non-linear behavior for larger ΔT, which restricts analysis to the linear regime. It would be helpful to quantify the linear-response range by showing a deviation metric or by plotting the ratio of the current to ΔT, particularly to justify that ΔT = 10 K is safely in the linear regime for both configurations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the AR-SL enhancement is a computed simulation comparison, not an input or self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a numerical comparison of thermal spin transfer torque (TSTT) between a normal superlattice (NSL) and an anti-reflective superlattice (AR-SL), both treated with the same spin-resolved NEGF formalism. The enhancement factor of about five is obtained from computed transmission functions and current integrals (Eqs. 2-5, 11-12), not from any parameter fit to the target quantity. The parameter Ubw is explicitly optimized by varying it and selecting the value that maximizes thermal current for the NSL; the AR-SL is then evaluated at the same parameter point. This is parameter selection in a simulation study, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The Slonczewski spin-current transmission in Eq. (12) is cited from the authors' prior supplementary notes [24], but that is an independent NEGF derivation of a standard current expression, not an assumption that contains the fivefold enhancement; it applies identically to both structures. The anti-reflective design draws on prior work [21,22,25], but the AR concept is also attributed to external work (Pacher et al. [25], and Martorell et al. [32]), and the prior own papers concern thermoelectric superlattice design, not thermal spin torque. No uniqueness theorem is invoked to forbid alternatives, and the boxcar enhancement is not true by definition; it is computed from energy-resolved transmission. The reader's concern about single-parameter operating points and lack of sensitivity analysis is a legitimate robustness question, but it is not a circularity: the derivation chain is self-contained and the predicted enhancement is not equivalent to the model inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce any new physical entities. The central claim relies on standard model assumptions (Stoner, NEGF, coherent transport) and on tuned structural parameters, chiefly Ubw and Lw.

free parameters (3)

Ubw (well height above Fermi energy) = 0.925 eV
Chosen by scanning Ubw to maximize the thermal spin torque and charge current (Fig. 3-4). The fivefold enhancement claim is based on this specific value.
Lw (well width) = 0.35 nm
Selected as the well width for the main figures (Figs. 2-5) after showing oscillatory behavior with well width. Not clearly justified as an optimum.
Lb (barrier thickness) = 1.2 nm
Kept fixed throughout; chosen because thicker barriers diminish currents, but no optimization is shown.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Stoner model of ferromagnetism with spin-split parabolic bands.
Used throughout to describe the ferromagnetic contacts (Sec. II). This simplified model ignores band structure details and magnon effects.
domain assumption Coherent transport with no inelastic scattering or disorder in the superlattice.
The NEGF calculation assumes ballistic coherent transport. Real devices will have disorder, phonon scattering, and interface roughness that could alter the transmission.
domain assumption Linear response regime for temperature bias (small delta T).
The authors assume linear response for the main results (delta T = 10 K) and acknowledge nonlinear behavior at higher delta T (Sec. III-D).
standard math The anti-reflective condition requires the two half-thickness barriers to act as a Bragg reflector matching the Bloch states of the central superlattice.
This is a known condition from optical and electronic anti-reflection theory (refs [25], [32]), applied here without further derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancement of Thermal Spin Transfer Torque via Bandpass Energy Filtering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RVWVIVL3

@misc{pith2026190806614,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancement of Thermal Spin Transfer Torque via Bandpass Energy Filtering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RVWVIVL3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06614}
}

read the original abstract

We propose the use of energy bandpass filtering approach in the magnetic tunnel junction device as a route to enhance the thermal spin transfer torque. Using the spin-resolved non-equilibrium Green's function formalism, we harness the optical analog of anti-reflective coating in a heterostructure MTJ device, that reports a huge spin torque in the linear regime of temperature bias. In particular, we discuss the position of transmission function with respect to the Fermi energy that caters the maximum thermal effect. The boxcar transmission feature of anti-reflective configuration enhances the charge and spin transport through the structure in comparison to the normal superlattice configurations. The thermally excited spin transfer torque is enhanced by almost five times more with our device design. Although, the thermally driven spin torque is much smaller than the potential driven torque, this technique provides an energy-efficient way to switch the magnetization. This opens up a new viable area in the spintronics applications. With the existing advanced thin-film growth technology, the optimized superlattice configurations can be achieved.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06614 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Color online: (a) Transmission coefficient as a function of energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (a) Parallel component of thermal spin transfer torque ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Color online: (a) Parallel component of spin resolved transmission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (a) Parallel component of thermal spin transfer torque ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: (a) Thermal spin torque and (b) charge current as a function of number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: (a) Parallel component of thermal spin transfer torque ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[1]

Conductance and exchange coupling of two ferro- magnets separated by a tunneling barrier,

J. C. Slonczewski, “Conductance and exchange coupling of two ferro- magnets separated by a tunneling barrier,” Physical Review B , vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 6995–7002, 1989

work page 1989
[2]

Current-driven excitation of magnetic multilayers,

——, “Current-driven excitation of magnetic multilayers,” Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials , vol. 159, no. 1.2, pp. L1–L7, 1996

work page 1996
[3]

Emission of spin waves by a magnetic multilayer traversed by a current,

L. Berger, “Emission of spin waves by a magnetic multilayer traversed by a current,” Physical Review B , vol. 54, no. 13, pp. 9353–9358, 1996

work page 1996
[4]

Spin transfer torques,

D. C. Ralph and M. D. Stiles, “Spin transfer torques,” Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials , vol. 320, no. 7, pp. 1190–1216, 2008

work page 2008
[5]

Ultrasensitive nanoscale magnetic-ﬁeld sensors based on resonant spin ﬁltering,

A. Sharma, A. Tulapurkar, and B. Muralidharan, “Ultrasensitive nanoscale magnetic-ﬁeld sensors based on resonant spin ﬁltering,” IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 4527–4534, 2016

work page 2016
[6]

Exchange-biased magnetic tunnel junctions and application to nonvolatile magnetic random access memory (invited),

S. S. P. Parkin, K. P. Roche, M. G. Samant, P. M. Rice, R. B. Beyers, R. E. Scheuerlein, E. J. O’Sullivan, S. L. Brown, J. Bucchigano, D. W. Abraham, Y . Lu, M. Rooks, P. L. Trouilloud, R. A. Wanner, and W. J. Gallagher, “Exchange-biased magnetic tunnel junctions and application to nonvolatile magnetic random access memory (invited),” Journal of Applied P...

work page 1999
[7]

Spin-torque building blocks,

N. Locatelli, V . Cros, and J. Grollier, “Spin-torque building blocks,” Nature Materials, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 11–20, 2014

work page 2014
[8]

Spin- torque diode effect in magnetic tunnel junctions,

A. A. Tulapurkar, Y . Suzuki, A. Fukushima, H. Kubota, H. Maehara, K. Tsunekawa, D. D. Djayaprawira, N. Watanabe, and S. Yuasa, “Spin- torque diode effect in magnetic tunnel junctions,” Nature, vol. 438, no. 7066, pp. 339–342, 2005

work page 2005

Show all 35 references

[9]

Resonant spin- transfer-torque nano-oscillators,

A. Sharma, A. A. Tulapurkar, and B. Muralidharan, “Resonant spin- transfer-torque nano-oscillators,” Physical Review Applied , vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 1–11, 2017

2017
[10]

Thermal spin- transfer torque in magnetoelectronic devices,

M. Hatami, G. E. Bauer, Q. Zhang, and P. J. Kelly, “Thermal spin- transfer torque in magnetoelectronic devices,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 99, no. 066603, pp. 1–4, 2007

2007
[11]

Initiation of spin-transfer torque by thermal transport from magnons,

J. C. Slonczewski, “Initiation of spin-transfer torque by thermal transport from magnons,” Physical Review B , vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 1–11, 2010

2010
[12]

Thermal spin transfer in fe-mgo-fe tunnel junctions,

X. Jia, K. Xia, and G. E. W. Bauer, “Thermal spin transfer in fe-mgo-fe tunnel junctions,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 107, no. 17, pp. 2–6, 2011

2011
[13]

Thermal spin-transfer torque in magnetic tunnel junctions (invited),

C. Heiliger, C. Franz, and M. Czerner, “Thermal spin-transfer torque in magnetic tunnel junctions (invited),” Journal of Applied Physics , vol. 115, no. 17, 2014

2014
[14]

Peltier effect in multilayered nanopillars under high density charge current,

L. Gravier, A. Fukushima, H. Kubota, A. Yamamoto, and S. Yuasa, “Peltier effect in multilayered nanopillars under high density charge current,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics , vol. 39, no. 24, pp. 52–67, 2006

2006
[15]

Observation of the spin seebeck effect,

K. Uchida, S. Takahashi, K. Harii, J. Ieda, W. Koshibae, K. Ando, S. Maekawa, and E. Saitoh, “Observation of the spin seebeck effect,” Nature, vol. 455, no. 7214, pp. 778–781, 2008

2008
[16]

Theory of the spin seebeck effect,

H. Adachi, K. I. Uchida, E. Saitoh, and S. Maekawa, “Theory of the spin seebeck effect,” Reports on Progress in Physics , vol. 76, no. 3, 2013

2013
[17]

Thermally excited spin current and giant magnetothermopower in metals with embedded ferromagnetic nanoclusters,

O. Tsyplyatyev, O. Kashuba, and V . I. Fal’ko, “Thermally excited spin current and giant magnetothermopower in metals with embedded ferromagnetic nanoclusters,” Phys. Rev. B , vol. 74, no. 13, p. 132403, 2006

2006
[18]

Seebeck effect in magnetic tunnel junctions,

M. Walter, J. Walowski, V . Zbarsky, M. M ¨unzenberg, M. Sch ¨afers, D. Ebke, G. Reiss, A. Thomas, P. Peretzki, M. Seibt, J. S. Moodera, M. Czerner, M. Bachmann, and C. Heiliger, “Seebeck effect in magnetic tunnel junctions,” Nature Materials, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 742–746, 2011

2011
[19]

Nanomagnet coupled to quantum spin hall edge: An adiabatic quantum motor,

L. Arrachea and F. V on Oppen, “Nanomagnet coupled to quantum spin hall edge: An adiabatic quantum motor,” Physica E: Low-Dimensional Systems and Nanostructures , vol. 74, pp. 596–602, 2015

2015
[20]

Enhancement of spin-transfer torque switching via resonant tunneling,

N. Chatterji, A. A. Tulapurkar, and B. Muralidharan, “Enhancement of spin-transfer torque switching via resonant tunneling,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 232410, no. 2014, 2015

2014
[21]

Super- lattice design for optimal thermoelectric generator performance,

P. Priyadarshi, A. Sharma, S. Mukherjee, and B. Muralidharan, “Super- lattice design for optimal thermoelectric generator performance,”Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics , vol. 51, no. 18, p. 185301, 2018

2018
[22]

Superior thermoelectric design via antireﬂection enabled lineshape engineering,

S. Mukherjee, P. Priyadarshi, A. Sharma, and B. Muralidharan, “Superior thermoelectric design via antireﬂection enabled lineshape engineering,” IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices , vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 1896–1901, 2018

1901
[23]

Enhancement of tunnel magnetoresistance in magnetic tunnel junction by a superlattice barrier,

C. H. Chen and W. J. Hsueh, “Enhancement of tunnel magnetoresistance in magnetic tunnel junction by a superlattice barrier,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 104, no. 4, p. 042405, 2014

2014
[24]

Band-pass fabry- p`erot magnetic tunnel junctions,

A. Sharma, A. A. Tulapurkar, and B. Muralidharan, “Band-pass fabry- p`erot magnetic tunnel junctions,” Applied Physics Letters , vol. 112, no. 19, p. 192404, 2018

2018
[25]

Antireﬂection coating for miniband transport and fabry-p´erot resonances in gaas/algaas superlattices,

C. Pacher, C. Rauch, G. Strasser, E. Gornik, F. Elsholz, A. Wacker, G. Kießlich, and E. Sch¨oll, “Antireﬂection coating for miniband transport and fabry-p´erot resonances in gaas/algaas superlattices,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 79, no. 10, pp. 1486–1488, 2001

2001
[26]

Design of electron band-pass ﬁlters for semiconductor superlattices,

G. V . Morozov, D. W. L. Sprung, and J. Martorell, “Design of electron band-pass ﬁlters for semiconductor superlattices,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics , vol. 335, pp. 3052–3059, 2002

2002
[27]

Enhancement of thermal spin transfer torque by double-barrier magnetic tunnel junctions with a nonmagnetic metal spacer,

C. H. Chen, P. Tseng, Y . Y . Yang, and W. J. Hsueh, “Enhancement of thermal spin transfer torque by double-barrier magnetic tunnel junctions with a nonmagnetic metal spacer,”Journal of Physics Condensed Matter, vol. 29, no. 2, p. 025806, 2017

2017
[28]

Datta, Quantum Transport: Atom to Transistor

S. Datta, Quantum Transport: Atom to Transistor . Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2005

2005
[29]

Cambridge, U.K

——, Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems, ser. Cambridge, U.K. Cambridge University Press, 1997

1997
[30]

V oltage asym- metry of spin-transfer torques,

D. Datta, B. Behin-Aein, S. Datta, and S. Salahuddin, “V oltage asym- metry of spin-transfer torques,” IEEE Transactions on Nanotechnology , vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 261–272, 2012

2012
[31]

Quantitative measurement of voltage dependence of spin-transfer torque in mgo-based magnetic tunnel junc- tions,

H. Kubota, A. Fukushima, K. Yakushiji, T. Nagahama, S. Yuasa, K. Ando, H. Maehara, Y . Nagamine, K. Tsunekawa, D. D. Djayaprawira, N. Watanabe, and Y . Suzuki, “Quantitative measurement of voltage dependence of spin-transfer torque in mgo-based magnetic tunnel junc- tions,” Na...

2008
[32]

Design of electron band pass ﬁlters for electrically biased ﬁnite superlattices,

J. Martorell, D. W. Sprung, and G. V . Morozov, “Design of electron band pass ﬁlters for electrically biased ﬁnite superlattices,” Physical Review B, vol. 69, no. 11, pp. 1–10, 2004. 7

2004
[33]

Most efﬁcient quantum thermoelectric at ﬁnite power output,

R. S. Whitney, “Most efﬁcient quantum thermoelectric at ﬁnite power output,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 112, no. 13, pp. 1–5, 2014

2014
[34]

Control of magnetization dynamics by spin-nernst torque,

A. Bose, A. S. Shukla, S. Dutta, S. Bhuktare, H. Singh, and A. A. Tulapurkar, “Control of magnetization dynamics by spin-nernst torque,” Phys. Rev. B , vol. 98, p. 184412, Nov 2018

2018
[35]

Thermal spin-transfer torque driven by the spin-dependent seebeck effect in metallic spin-valves,

G. M. Choi, C. H. Moon, B. C. Min, K. J. Lee, and D. G. Cahill, “Thermal spin-transfer torque driven by the spin-dependent seebeck effect in metallic spin-valves,” Nature Physics, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 576– 581, 2015

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Conductance and exchange coupling of two ferro- magnets separated by a tunneling barrier,

J. C. Slonczewski, “Conductance and exchange coupling of two ferro- magnets separated by a tunneling barrier,” Physical Review B , vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 6995–7002, 1989

work page 1989

[2] [2]

Current-driven excitation of magnetic multilayers,

——, “Current-driven excitation of magnetic multilayers,” Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials , vol. 159, no. 1.2, pp. L1–L7, 1996

work page 1996

[3] [3]

Emission of spin waves by a magnetic multilayer traversed by a current,

L. Berger, “Emission of spin waves by a magnetic multilayer traversed by a current,” Physical Review B , vol. 54, no. 13, pp. 9353–9358, 1996

work page 1996

[4] [4]

Spin transfer torques,

D. C. Ralph and M. D. Stiles, “Spin transfer torques,” Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials , vol. 320, no. 7, pp. 1190–1216, 2008

work page 2008

[5] [5]

Ultrasensitive nanoscale magnetic-ﬁeld sensors based on resonant spin ﬁltering,

A. Sharma, A. Tulapurkar, and B. Muralidharan, “Ultrasensitive nanoscale magnetic-ﬁeld sensors based on resonant spin ﬁltering,” IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 4527–4534, 2016

work page 2016

[6] [6]

Exchange-biased magnetic tunnel junctions and application to nonvolatile magnetic random access memory (invited),

S. S. P. Parkin, K. P. Roche, M. G. Samant, P. M. Rice, R. B. Beyers, R. E. Scheuerlein, E. J. O’Sullivan, S. L. Brown, J. Bucchigano, D. W. Abraham, Y . Lu, M. Rooks, P. L. Trouilloud, R. A. Wanner, and W. J. Gallagher, “Exchange-biased magnetic tunnel junctions and application to nonvolatile magnetic random access memory (invited),” Journal of Applied P...

work page 1999

[7] [7]

Spin-torque building blocks,

N. Locatelli, V . Cros, and J. Grollier, “Spin-torque building blocks,” Nature Materials, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 11–20, 2014

work page 2014

[8] [8]

Spin- torque diode effect in magnetic tunnel junctions,

A. A. Tulapurkar, Y . Suzuki, A. Fukushima, H. Kubota, H. Maehara, K. Tsunekawa, D. D. Djayaprawira, N. Watanabe, and S. Yuasa, “Spin- torque diode effect in magnetic tunnel junctions,” Nature, vol. 438, no. 7066, pp. 339–342, 2005

work page 2005