Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 86 references

Giant topological Hall effect in epitaxial Ni$_{80}$Fe$_{20}$/La$_{0.65}$Sr$_{0.35}$MnO$_3$ thin film heterostructures

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports a room-temperature topological Hall resistivity of about 2.8 µΩ·cm in epitaxial permalloy/La0.65Sr0.35MnO3 heterostructures, about five times larger than in single-layer permalloy, and attributes the enhancement to…

desk verdict New heterostructure with clean growth, but the 2.8 µΩcm topological Hall peak likely arises from a single-coefficient AHE subtraction across two magnetic phases; worth refereeing, not citing. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09969 v1 pith:PBH2Q25Z submitted 2025-01-17 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Kusampal Yadav , Dilruba Hasina , Nasiruddin Mondal , Sayantika Bhowal , Devajyoti Mukherjee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords topologicalHalleffectskyrmionspermalloylanthanumstrontiummanganiteoxideheterostructuresRashbaspin-orbitcouplinganomalousmagneticforcemicroscopy
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 a topological Hall resistivity of about $2.8\,\mu\Omega\,\text{cm}$ at room temperature in epitaxial Py/LSMO heterostructures, roughly five times larger than the $0.56\,\mu\Omega\,\text{cm}$ seen in single-layer permalloy films, with a zero-field remanent topological signal of $1.55\,\mu\Omega\,\text{cm}$ in the bilayers. The authors argue that the enhancement comes from the interface: broken inversion symmetry creates a Rashba-type spin-orbit field, and charge transfer and exchange coupling between permalloy and LSMO stabilizes skyrmion-like non-coplanar spin textures, which generate the topological Hall signal through their real-space Berry curvature. Magnetic force microscopy shows skyrmion-like features, and a tight-binding model of a skyrmion lattice shows the Rashba interaction can change the magnitude and sign of the topological Hall conductivity. A BaTiO3 sandwich layer also produces an enhanced topological Hall resistivity (~$2.60\,\mu\Omega\,\text{cm}$), attributed to the ferroelectric proximity effect rather than magnetic exchange. If correct, this provides a room-temperature material platform in which topological spin textures appear without heavy metals.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-step Hall-resistivity decomposition plus a Rashba-skyrmion tight-binding model. The total Hall resistivity is written as $\rho_{xy} = R_0 H + R_s M + \rho^T_{xy}$; the ordinary Hall term $R_0 H$ is obtained by a linear fit at high fields, and the anomalous Hall term is taken proportional to the total magnetization $M$ with a single coefficient $R_s$ fixed by the saturated high-field data, so the remaining field-dependent hump is assigned to the topological Hall effect. The theoretical engine is a tight-binding model of a square-lattice skyrmion crystal with nearest-neighbor hopping $t$, Hund's coupling $J_H/t = 100$, and a Rashba term $H_R = \alpha[\sigma_x \sin(k_y a) - \sigma_y \sin(k_x a)]$; the topological Hall conductivity is computed via the Kubo formula from the Berry curvature. This model shows the Rashba interaction can modulate the topological Hall conductivity and reverse its response with the sign of $\alpha$, giving a route to electrically control the effect.

What would settle it

Measure the Hall resistivity versus field of single-layer Py and single-layer LSMO films of identical thickness and growth conditions, compute their conductivity-weighted sum, and compare with the measured Py/LSMO bilayer: if the weighted sum reproduces the hump without any added term, the topological interpretation is not needed. A complementary decisive check is Lorentz transmission electron microscopy on the same stack, looking for skyrmion winding at the fields where the hump appears; absence of such contrast would refute the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a large topological Hall effect can be generated at a simple ferromagnet/oxide interface: epitaxial Ni80Fe20 grown on La0.65Sr0.35MnO3 shows a topological Hall resistivity of about $2.8\,\mu\Omega\,\text{cm}$ at room temperature, about five times the value in single-layer permalloy, and the effect survives up to 375 K and leaves a remanent signal at zero field. The authors attribute this to non-coplanar, skyrmion-like spin textures at the Py/LSMO interface, stabilized by interfacial Rashba spin-orbit coupling (from broken inversion symmetry and a built-in electric field caused by charge transfer) together with magnetic exchange coupling between the two layers. Magnetic force microscopy reveals skyrmion-like features whose average size is largest in the Py/LSMO stack, consistent with the largest topological Hall signal. Tight-binding calculations for a Néel skyrmion lattice show that adding a Rashba term changes the magnitude and sign of the topological Hall conductivity, providing a plausible microscopic account of the observed enhancement. The paper explicitly notes that non-topological chiral textures or inhomogeneous electronic structure could also mimic the anomaly, and that direct real-space imaging by Lorentz transmission electron microscopy is needed to confirm topological spin texture.

Load-bearing premise

The entire topological Hall signal rests on the assumption that the anomalous Hall effect of the two-magnetic-phase stack can be represented by one coefficient times the total magnetization; if permalloy and LSMO contribute separate anomalous Hall terms with different field dependencies, the subtraction creates a spurious topological hump.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The room-temperature value ($2.8\,\mu\Omega\,\text{cm}$) is among the largest reported for epitaxial thin films, and the effect persists from 250 K to 375 K, which would make the material usable in temperature-tolerant spintronic devices if the interpretation holds.
  • The zero-field remanent topological Hall resistivity of $1.55\,\mu\Omega\,\text{cm}$ in Py/LSMO implies stable skyrmion-like states without an applied field, a requirement for low-power memory and logic.
  • The BTO sandwich shows that a ferroelectric layer can substitute for magnetic exchange coupling in producing enhanced topological Hall effect, pointing to a materials-design knob (ferroelectric polarization) separate from interface exchange.
  • The model predicts the topological Hall conductivity changes sign with the sign of the Rashba coefficient, suggesting that an external gate voltage could switch the effect on and off in these heterostructures.
  • The paper itself cautions that non-topological chiral textures or inhomogeneous electronic structure can mimic a topological Hall anomaly, so Lorentz transmission electron microscopy is required to verify the skyrmion interpretation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Py and LSMO have independent anomalous Hall coefficients with different field dependences, the single-$R_s$ subtraction used here could create a hump that looks topological; a two-channel model of the Hall response or a variable-thickness paramagnetic spacer experiment would test this directly.
  • The model computes a periodic skyrmion lattice while MFM shows isolated, irregular objects; bridging this gap (for example, by simulating isolated skyrmions in a disordered landscape) would test whether the calculated $\sigma_{xy}^{THC}$ can quantitatively reproduce the measured resistivity.
  • The single-layer Py reference already shows a topological Hall signal of $0.56\,\mu\Omega\,\text{cm}$ attributed to strain-induced tetragonal distortion; growing Py on a lattice-matched buffer to remove strain would isolate the interfacial contribution from the bulklike strain contribution.
  • Comparing the same Py/LSMO stack with varying LSMO thickness or with a heavy-metal cap would clarify whether the enhancement scales with interfacial Rashba strength or with the half-metallic character of LSMO.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the observation of a topological Hall effect in epitaxial Py/LSMO and Py/BTO/LSMO heterostructures grown on MgO(100), with a maximum topological Hall resistivity of about 2.8 µΩcm at room temperature in Py/LSMO, compared with 0.56 µΩcm in single-layer Py. The authors attribute the enhancement to interfacial Rashba interaction and skyrmion-like spin textures, supported by field-dependent MFM imaging and by a tight-binding model of a skyrmion lattice with Rashba coupling. The paper includes structural, magnetic, transport, and spectroscopic characterization of the heterostructures.

Significance. If the Hall decomposition is correct, the reported room-temperature topological Hall resistivity of 2.83 µΩcm in Py/LSMO is among the largest reported in epitaxial heterostructures and would be of considerable interest for spintronics. The paper combines careful epitaxial growth characterization (XRD RSM, rocking curves, XPS), field- and temperature-dependent transport, and MFM imaging, and it includes a model calculation with a well-defined Kubo-formula prescription. These strengths make the claim potentially important. However, the extraction of rho_T depends on a single-coefficient AHE subtraction that conflicts with the explicitly observed two-phase magnetization loop, and the supporting MFM and model evidence are not yet decisive.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix E (Eq. E1), Fig. 2] The decomposition in Eq. (E1) subtracts a single anomalous Hall term Rs M(H) from the measured total Hall resistivity, with Rs extracted at saturation (Appendix E). However, Section III B and Fig. 2(b) show that the out-of-plane M(H) loop of Py/LSMO is a two-step loop with soft (Py) and hard (LSMO) magnetic phases. In a parallel-conduction stack, the anomalous Hall effect is a weighted sum of different Rs_i M_i(H) for each layer, and a single Rs cannot describe the field-dependent AHE of the bilayer. The residual obtained by subtracting Rs M_total(H) will be largest near the switching fields of the two phases, exactly where the claimed topological Hall peak occurs (about 0.05 T, Table III) and where a remanent hump remains at H=0. The same objection applies to Py/BTO/LSMO, since the BTO interlayer does not remove the conducting LSMO channel. The authors cite Kimbell et al. [76] on nontopological mimics of the THE, but the two-channel AHE scenario is not excluded. The reported 2.83 micro-ohm-cm THE can therefore be an artifact of the subtraction. Please re-analyze with a two-channel model (or single-layer controls) and show the residual persists.
  2. [Section III B, Fig. 4] The MFM images in Fig. 4 show irregular, skyrmion-like features at 0.2 T, but MFM senses stray-field gradients and cannot by itself establish a nonzero topological charge; similar contrast can arise from magnetic bubbles, stripe-domain fragments, or tip-induced effects. The manuscript itself acknowledges in Section III C that Lorentz TEM is needed for decisive confirmation. Given that the Hall-subtraction issue in Major Comment 1 undermines the primary evidence, the MFM images as presented do not provide independent support for the topological origin. Please add size/field statistics and a quantitative comparison with the expected stray-field contrast, or obtain complementary imaging.
  3. [Section III C, Eqs. (1)-(4), Fig. 5] The tight-binding calculation in Section III C demonstrates that for a prescribed skyrmion lattice the computed topological Hall conductivity changes when a Rashba term is added. However, the model does not reproduce the experimental magnitude, sign, or field dependence: no experimental parameter (carrier density, skyrmion size, Rashba coefficient) is used to set the scale, and no conversion from sigma_xy to rho_xy is provided. The statement that the Rashba interaction 'can account for the observed changes' is therefore not quantitatively supported. Please either fit the model to the measured parameters and compare magnitudes, or restrict the claim to 'is consistent with'.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section I] Typo: 'Rasba effect' should be 'Rashba effect' in the introduction.
  2. [Table III] In the FeGe row, 'Symerion' should be 'Skyrmion'.
  3. [Appendix G, Fig. 10 caption] The caption states 'represents 11 µm', which is likely a typo for 1 µm; the scale bar in Fig. 4 is 1 µm.
  4. [Table II and Section III B] The units of the uniaxial anisotropy constant are inconsistent: the text gives erg/cm^2 while Table II lists erg/cm^3; please harmonize.
  5. [Fig. 3] The Hall resistivity curves are plotted without error bars or an explicit measurement precision; please state the experimental uncertainty.
  6. [Reference [69]] Reference [69] is cited as an arXiv preprint; please cite the published version if available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the experimental THE is a standard residual and the model calculation is independent of the measured values.

full rationale

The central experimental claim is obtained by a standard Hall decomposition, with the total Hall resistivity written as rho_xy = R0H + RsM + rho_T (Appendix E, Eq. E1). Rs is fixed from the saturated stack and rho_T is the field-dependent residual; this is the operational definition of a topological Hall signal, not a prediction forced by a fitted parameter. The theoretical section independently computes the Berry-curvature topological Hall conductivity (Eqs. 3-4) of a skyrmion lattice with and without Rashba coupling; no experimental value of rho_T, no fitted film parameter, and no measured magnetization enters the model calculation. The self-citations (Refs. 4 and 34, by co-author S. Bhowal) are to standard Rashba and skyrmion tight-binding forms and are not load-bearing: the Rashba term is a textbook form and the THC is evaluated in the present paper rather than imported from the cited works. The paper itself cites Kimbell et al. [76] and explicitly states that non-topological chiral spin textures and inhomogeneous electronic structures can mimic AHE anomalies, which is a limitation/correctness caveat rather than a circular step. The skeptic's concern that a single-coefficient AHE subtraction may create a spurious hump in a two-magnetic-phase stack is a substantive validity risk, but it is not a case of the paper's result being equivalent to its own inputs by construction.

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

The central claim rests on the data decomposition, which introduces fitted coefficients R0 and Rs, on the assumption that the observed MFM features are topological skyrmions, and on a model that assumes a skyrmion lattice and a specific Rashba form. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Ordinary Hall coefficient R0 = not given numerically; extracted from high-field linear fit
    Used in Appendix E to subtract the ordinary Hall contribution. The extracted topological Hall resistivity depends sensitively on this fit.
  • Anomalous Hall coefficient Rs = derived from rho_A+T_xy(sat)/M(sat)
    Assumes a single coefficient scaling with total magnetization to subtract the AHE. If invalid, the residual THE is spurious.
  • Rashba coefficient alpha in tight-binding model = alpha/t = 0, +-0.5
    Chosen ad hoc to illustrate the effect; no experimental value or quantitative comparison is made.
  • Hund's coupling JH/t = JH/t = 100
    Set to enforce the adiabatic limit; not derived from experiment.
  • Skyrmion size lambda in model = not specified in units
    The spin texture ansatz theta = pi(1-r/lambda) uses lambda, but no relation to measured MFM sizes is established; purely illustrative.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Hall data can be decomposed as rho_xy = R0*H + Rs*M + rho_T_xy with a single Rs for the whole stack.
    Appendix E; load-bearing for the central claim. If the two magnetic layers contribute different AHE terms, the extracted THE is an artifact.
  • domain assumption The spin texture in the samples is a Neel-type skyrmion lattice with m=1, gamma=0 and theta = pi(1-r/lambda).
    Section II B; assumed in the model, not proven in the samples.
  • domain assumption The electrons are in the adiabatic limit JH >> t so that spins follow the local magnetization.
    Section II B, JH/t = 100.
  • ad hoc to paper The Rashba coupling has the form HR = alpha[sigma_x sin(k_y a) - sigma_y sin(k_x a)] with a single alpha for all bands.
    Eq. (2) and the statement in Section II B that alpha is taken identical for all bands for simplicity.
  • standard math The Kubo formula gives the topological Hall conductivity.
    Eqs. (3)-(4); standard linear response theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Giant topological Hall effect in epitaxial Ni$_{80}$Fe$_{20}$/La$_{0.65}$Sr$_{0.35}$MnO$_3$ thin film heterostructures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PBH2Q25Z

@misc{pith2026250109969,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Giant topological Hall effect in epitaxial Ni$_80$Fe$_20$/La$_0.65$Sr$_0.35$MnO$_3$ thin film heterostructures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PBH2Q25Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09969}
}
abstract

The emergence of new physical properties at the interfaces between complex oxides has always been of both fundamental and practical importance. Here, we report the observation of a giant topological Hall resistivity of $\sim 2.8 \mu \Omega$ \text{cm} at room temperature in an epitaxial thin-film heterostructure of permalloy (Py, Ni$_{80}$Fe$_{20}$) and the half-metallic ferromagnet La$_{0.65}$Sr$_{0.35}$MnO$_3$ (LSMO). This large magnitude of the topological Hall effect in the Py/LSMO heterostructure, compared to a single-layer Py thin film, is attributed to the optimized combination of ferromagnetism in LSMO and the strong spin-orbit-coupling-driven Rashba interaction at the interface. The introduction of a ferroelectric BaTiO$_3$ (BTO) sandwich layer in the Py/LSMO heterostructure also leads to an enhanced topological Hall resistivity compared to the single-layer Py thin film. Interestingly, magnetic force microscopy measurements reveal skyrmion-like features, suggesting the origin of the topological Hall effect. Our theoretical model calculations for the skyrmion lattice further indicate that the Rashba interaction, driven by the broken inversion symmetry in the Py/LSMO films, can account for the observed changes in the topological Hall effect at the interface. Our work opens the door for the potential use of Py/LSMO thin films in spintronic applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09969 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Reciprocal space maps of Py ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Normalized in- and out-of-plane magnetic M(H) hys [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (a) Total Hall resistivity (b) combined anomalous and topological Hall resistivity, and (c) topological Hall resistivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) Band structure of the skyrmion lattice along dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: MFM images of the top Py layers in (a-f) Py, (g-l) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (a) Rocking curve around the (200) Py symmetric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: (a) In-plane room temperature longitudinal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (a) Temperature-dependent hall resistivity of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Effect of external magnetic field-dependent MFM images varying field in the range of 0.05 T to 0.2 T at a step of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [76]

    Kimbell, C

    G. Kimbell, C. Kim, W. Wu, M. Cuoco, and J. W. A. Robinson, Communications Materials 3, 19 (2022), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s43246-022-00238-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s43246-022-00238-2 2022

  2. [1]

    H. Y. Hwang, Y. Iwasa, M. Kawasaki, B. Keimer, N. Na- gaosa, and Y. Tokura, Nature Materials 11, 103 (2012), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3223

    doi:10.1038/nmat3223 2012

  3. [2]

    K. S. Takahashi, M. Kawasaki, and Y. Tokura, Applied Physics Letters 79, 1324 (2001), ISSN 0003-6951, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/79/9/1324/18559896/1324 1 online.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1398331

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1398331 2001

  4. [3]

    Nichols, X

    J. Nichols, X. Gao, S. Lee, T. L. Meyer, J. W. Freeland, V. Lauter, D. Yi, J. Liu, D. Haskel, J. R. Petrie, et al., Nature Communications 7, 12721 (2016), URL https: //doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12721

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms12721 2016

  5. [4]

    Bhowal and S

    S. Bhowal and S. Satpathy, Phys. Rev. B 99, 245145 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.99.245145

    2019

  6. [5]

    Bhowal and S

    S. Bhowal and S. Satpathy, npj Computational Ma- terials 5, 61 (2019), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41524-019-0198-8

    2019

  7. [6]

    Ohtomo and H

    A. Ohtomo and H. Y. Hwang, Nature 427, 423 (2004), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02308

    doi:10.1038/nature02308 2004

  8. [7]

    K. D. Belashchenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 147204 (2010), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.105.147204

    2010

Show all 86 references
  1. [8]

    S. F. Weber, A. Urru, S. Bhowal, C. Ederer, and N. A. Spaldin, Phys. Rev. X 14, 021033 (2024), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.14.021033

    2024 doi

  2. [9]

    Bhowal, A

    S. Bhowal, A. Urru, S. F. Weber, and N. A. Spaldin, Emergent surface multiferroicity (2024), 2411.12434, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.12434

    2024 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Matsuno, N

    J. Matsuno, N. Ogawa, K. Yasuda, F. Kagawa, W. Koshibae, N. Nagaosa, Y. Tokura, and M. Kawasaki, Sci. Adv 2, e1600304 (2016), URL https://www. science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv.1600304

    2016 doi

  4. [11]

    Ohuchi, J

    Y. Ohuchi, J. Matsuno, N. Ogawa, Y. Kozuka, M. Uchida, Y. Tokura, and M. Kawasaki, Nature Com- munications 9, 213 (2018), URL https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41467-017-02629-3

    2018

  5. [12]

    Soumyanarayanan, N

    A. Soumyanarayanan, N. Reyren, A. Fert, and C. Panagopoulos, Nature 539, 509 (2016), URL https: //doi.org/10.1038/nature19820. 15

    2016 doi

  6. [13]

    Vistoli, W

    L. Vistoli, W. Wang, A. Sander, Q. Zhu, B. Casals, R. Ci- chelero, A. Barth´ el´ emy, S. Fusil, G. Herranz, S. Valen- cia, et al., Nature Physics 15, 67 (2019), URL https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41567-018-0307-5

    2019 doi

  7. [14]

    Skoropata, J

    E. Skoropata, J. Nichols, J. M. Ok, R. V. Chopdekar, E. S. Choi, A. Rastogi, C. Sohn, X. Gao, S. Yoon, T. Farmer, et al., Science Advances 6, eaaz3902 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/ sci- adv.aaz3902, URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/ 10.1126/sciadv.aaz3902

    2020 doi

  8. [15]

    M.-W. Yoo, J. Tornos, A. Sander, L.-F. Lin, N. Mohanta, A. Peralta, D. Sanchez-Manzano, F. Gallego, D. Haskel, J. W. Freeland, et al., Nature Communications (2021), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23489-y

    2021 doi

  9. [16]

    C. H. Ahn, A. Bhattacharya, M. Di Ventra, J. N. Eck- stein, C. D. Frisbie, M. E. Gershenson, A. M. Gold- man, I. H. Inoue, J. Mannhart, A. J. Millis, et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 1185 (2006), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.78.1185

    2006 doi

  10. [17]

    Middey, P

    S. Middey, P. Rivero, D. Meyers, M. Kareev, X. Liu, Y. Cao, J. W. Freeland, S. Barraza-Lopez, and J. Chakhalian, Scientific Reports 4, 6819 (2014), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06819

    2014 doi

  11. [18]

    Okamoto, J

    S. Okamoto, J. Nichols, C. Sohn, S. Y. Kim, T. W. Noh, and H. N. Lee, Nano Letters 17, 2126 (2017), URL https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b04107

    2017 doi

  12. [19]

    Belabbes, G

    A. Belabbes, G. Bihlmayer, S. Bl¨ ugel, and A. Manchon, Scientific Reports 6, 24634 (2016), URL https://doi. org/10.1038/srep24634

    2016 doi

  13. [20]

    D. Xiao, W. Zhu, Y. Ran, N. Nagaosa, and S. Okamoto, Nature Communications 2, 596 (2011), URL https:// doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1602

    2011 doi

  14. [21]

    MATSUNO, Hyomen Kagaku 38, 614 (2017)

    J. MATSUNO, Hyomen Kagaku 38, 614 (2017)

    2017

  15. [22]

    Huang, Y.-C

    Y.-H. Huang, Y.-C. Weng, C.-T. Liang, and J. G. Lin, AIP Advances 10, 015041 (2020), ISSN 2158-3226, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5129445/12999765/015041 1 online. pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5129445

    2020 doi

  16. [23]

    H. D. Arnold and G. W. Elmen, The Bell System Tech- nical Journal 2, 101 (1923)

    1923

  17. [24]

    Zhang, F

    S. Zhang, F. Kronast, G. van der Laan, and T. Hesjedal, Nano Letters 18, 1057 (2018), URL https://doi.org/ 10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b04537

    2018 doi

  18. [25]

    Tokura and Y

    Y. Tokura and Y. Tomioka, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 200, 1 (1999), ISSN 0304- 8853, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0304885399003522

    1999

  19. [26]

    M. V. J. M. D. Coey and S. von Moln´ ar, Advances in Physics 48, 167 (1999), https://doi.org/10.1080/000187399243455, URL https://doi.org/10.1080/000187399243455

    1999 doi

  20. [27]

    Y. Li, L. Zhang, Q. Zhang, C. Li, T. Yang, Y. Deng, L. Gu, and D. Wu, ACS Applied Materials & Inter- faces 11, 21268 (2019), URL https://doi.org/10.1021/ acsami.9b05562

    2019

  21. [28]

    Y. zhao, F. Liu, and C. Jiang, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 570, 170529 (2023), ISSN 0304- 8853, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0304885323001786

    2023

  22. [29]

    Bergenti, P

    I. Bergenti, P. K. Manna, C.-H. Lin, P. Graziosi, X. Liu, G. L. Causer, F. Liscio, A. Ruotolo, V. A. Dediu, J. van Lierop, et al., Journal of Applied Physics 124, 183903 (2018), ISSN 0021-8979, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5049235/15218206/183903 1 o...

    2018 doi

  23. [30]

    Ruotolo, A

    A. Ruotolo, A. Oropallo, F. Miletto Granozio, G. P. Pepe, P. Perna, and U. Scotti di Uccio, Applied Physics Letters 88, 252504 (2006), ISSN 0003-6951, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.2216891/14351874/252504 1 online. pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2216891

    2006 doi

  24. [31]

    Mondal, A

    N. Mondal, A. Barman, S. Chatterjee, and D. Mukher- jee, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Mate- rials 564, 170118 (2022), ISSN 0304-8853, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0304885322010034

    2022

  25. [32]

    H. I, F. R, G.-R. JM, C. J, G.-H. J, and B. AM, The Review of scientific instruments 78(1), 013705 (2007)

    2007

  26. [33]

    Hamamoto, M

    K. Hamamoto, M. Ezawa, and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. B 92, 115417 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.115417

    2015 doi

  27. [34]

    Bhowal and N

    S. Bhowal and N. A. Spaldin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 227204 (2022), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.128.227204

    2022

  28. [35]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y. Tokura, Nat. Nanotechnol. 8, 899 (2013), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2013. 243

    2013 doi

  29. [36]

    Kawano and C

    M. Kawano and C. Hotta, Phys. Rev. B 107, 045123 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.107.045123

    2023

  30. [37]

    Pekar and ´E

    S. Pekar and ´E. I. Rashba, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 47, 1927 (1964), [Sov. Phys. JETP 20 (5), 1295- 1298 (1965)], URL http://www.jetp.ras.ru/cgi-bin/ e/index/r/47/5/p1927?a=list

    1964

  31. [38]

    Rashba, Sov

    E. Rashba, Sov. Phys.-Solid State 2, 1109 (1960), URL https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1571698600346713472

    1960

  32. [39]

    Y. A. Bychkov and E. I. Rashba, J. Solid State Phys. 17, 6039 (1984), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0022-3719/17/33/015

    1984

  33. [40]

    K. V. Shanavas and S. Satpathy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 086802 (2014), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.086802

    2014 doi

  34. [41]

    Jiang, X

    J. Jiang, X. Sun, X. Chen, B. Wang, Z. Chen, Y. Hu, Y. Guo, L. Zhang, M. Yuan, L. Gao, et al., Nature Com- munications 10 (2019)

    2019

  35. [42]

    Chatterjee, K

    S. Chatterjee, K. Yadav, N. Mondal, G. S. Kumar, D. Bhattacharya, and D. Mukherjee, Journal of Applied Physics 135 (2024)

    2024

  36. [43]

    P. Roy, D. Zhang, A. R. Mazza, N. Cucciniello, S. Kun- war, H. Zeng, A. Chen, and Q. Jia, Nanoscale 15, 17589 (2023), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/D3NR02407E

    2023 doi

  37. [44]

    X. Yao, C. Wang, E.-J. Guo, X. Wang, X. Li, L. Liao, Y. Zhou, S. Lin, Q. Jin, C. Ge, et al., ACS Applied Ma- terials & Interfaces 14, 6194 (2022), pMID: 35072446, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.1c21703, URL https:// doi.org/10.1021/acsami.1c21703

    2022 doi

  38. [45]

    R. Rana, P. Pandey, R. P. Singh, and D. S.Rana, Scien- tific Reports 4, 4138 (2014), URL https://doi.org/10. 1038/srep04138

    2014

  39. [46]

    N. Li, R. Sun, Y. Li, L. Su, Z.-Z. Gong, X.-Q. Zhang, W. He, and Z.-H. Cheng, Physics Let- ters A 401, 127329 (2021), ISSN 0375-9601, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0375960121001936

    2021

  40. [47]

    Y. He, S. Schneider, T. Helm, J. Gayles, D. Wolf, I. Soldatov, H. Borrmann, W. Schnelle, R. Schaefer, 16 G. H. Fecher, et al., Acta Materialia 226, 117619 (2022), ISSN 1359-6454, URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S1359645422000039

    2022

  41. [48]

    Ziese and I

    M. Ziese and I. Lindfors-Vrejoiu, Journal of Applied Physics 124, 163905 (2018), ISSN 0021-8979, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5051812/15219613/163905 1 online. pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5051812

    2018 doi

  42. [49]

    S. K. Chaluvadi, V. Polewczyk, A. Y. Petrov, G. Vinai, L. Braglia, J. M. Diez, V. Pierron, P. Perna, L. Mechin, P. Torelli, et al., ACS Omega 7, 14571 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c06529, URL https: //doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c06529

    2022 doi

  43. [50]

    Mukherjee, M

    D. Mukherjee, M. Hordagoda, P. Lampen, M.-H. Phan, H. Srikanth, S. Witanachchi, and P. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. B 91, 054419 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.91.054419

    2015 doi

  44. [51]

    Chen, T.-H

    Y.-C. Chen, T.-H. Hong, Z.-X. Jiang, and Q.-R. Lin, Journal of Applied Physics 103, 07E305 (2008), ISSN 0021-8979, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2836801

    2008 doi

  45. [52]

    Kanazawa, Y

    N. Kanazawa, Y. Onose, T. Arima, D. Okuyama, K. Ohoyama, S. Wakimoto, K. Kakurai, S. Ishi- wata, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 156603 (2011), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.106.156603

    2011

  46. [53]

    Z. Liu, A. Burigu, Y. Zhang, H. M. Jafri, X. Ma, E. Liu, W. Wang, and G. Wu, Scripta Mate- rialia 143, 122 (2018), ISSN 1359-6462, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S1359646217305365

    2018

  47. [54]

    Roychowdhury, K

    S. Roychowdhury, K. Samanta, P. Yanda, B. Mala- man, M. Yao, W. Schnelle, E. Guilmeau, P. Con- stantinou, S. Chandra, H. Borrmann, et al., Journal of the American Chemical Society 145, 12920 (2023), pMID: 37267070, https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.3c04249, URL https://doi.org/10.1...

    2023 doi

  48. [55]

    Roychowdhury, S

    S. Roychowdhury, S. Singh, S. N. Guin, N. Kumar, T. Chakraborty, W. Schnelle, H. Borrmann, C. Shekhar, and C. Felser, Chemistry of Materials 33, 8343 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.1c02625, URL https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.1c02625

    2021 doi

  49. [56]

    Y. Xu, W. Ren, S. Ma, C. Chen, C. Fang, X. Luo, and Z. Mo, Applied Physics Letters 123, 072402 (2023), ISSN 0003-6951, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0160745/18084495/072402 1 5.0160745. pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0160745

    2023 doi

  50. [57]

    W. Wang, Y. Zhang, G. Xu, L. Peng, B. Ding, Y. Wang, Z. Hou, X. Zhang, X. Li, E. Liu, et al., Advanced Materials 28, 6887 (2016), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ adma.201600889, URL https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/adma.201600889

    2016 doi

  51. [58]

    M. R. U. Nabi, A. Wegner, F. Wang, Y. Zhu, Y. Guan, A. Fereidouni, K. Pandey, R. Basnet, G. Acharya, H. O. H. Churchill, et al., Phys. Rev. B 104, 174419 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.104.174419

    2021

  52. [59]

    A. S. Ahmed, J. Rowland, B. D. Esser, S. R. Dunsiger, D. W. McComb, M. Randeria, and R. K. Kawakami, Phys. Rev. Mater. 2, 041401 (2018), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.2.041401

    2018 doi

  53. [60]

    J. C. Gallagher, K. Y. Meng, J. T. Brangham, H. L. Wang, B. D. Esser, D. W. McComb, and F. Y. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 027201 (2017), URL https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.027201

    2017 doi

  54. [61]

    Budhathoki, A

    S. Budhathoki, A. Sapkota, K. M. Law, S. Ranjit, B. Nepal, B. D. Hoskins, A. S. Thind, A. Y. Borise- vich, M. E. Jamer, T. J. Anderson, et al., Phys. Rev. B 101, 220405 (2020), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.101.220405

    2020 doi

  55. [62]

    M. He, G. Li, Z. Zhu, Y. Zhang, L. Peng, R. Li, J. Li, H. Wei, T. Zhao, X.-G. Zhang, et al., Phys. Rev. B 97, 174419 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.97.174419

    2018 doi

  56. [63]

    Ohuchi, Y

    Y. Ohuchi, Y. Kozuka, M. Uchida, K. Ueno, A. Tsukazaki, and M. Kawasaki, Phys. Rev. B 91, 245115 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.91.245115

    2015

  57. [64]

    Y. Chen, Y. Zhu, R. Lin, W. Niu, R. Liu, W. Zhuang, X. Zhang, J. Liang, W. Sun, Z. Chen, et al., Ad- vanced Functional Materials 33, 2302984 (2023), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ adfm.202302984, URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/abs/10.1002/adfm.202302984

    2023 doi

  58. [65]

    Lone, Aijaz H.and Zou, D

    X. Lone, Aijaz H.and Zou, D. Das, X. Fong, G. Setti, and H. Fariborzi, npj Spintronics (2024), URL https: //doi.org/10.1038/s44306-023-00006-z

    2024 doi

  59. [66]

    L. Ma, Y. Li, H. R. Fu, N. Tian, and C. Y. You, Applied Physics Letters 121, 192405 (2022), ISSN 0003-6951, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0127474/16486989/192405 1 online. pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0127474

    2022 doi

  60. [67]

    Sugimoto, Y

    S. Sugimoto, Y. K. Takahashi, and S. Kasai, Ap- plied Physics Letters 121, 182404 (2022), ISSN 0003-6951, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0128572/16487044/182404 1 online. pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0128572

    2022 doi

  61. [68]

    P. Chen, C. Zhang, Y. Wang, B. Lv, P. Liu, Y. Tian, J. Ran, C. Gao, Q. Liu, and D. Xue, Phys. Rev. B 104, 064409 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.104.064409

    2021 doi

  62. [69]

    N. A. Porter, P. Sinha, M. B. Ward, A. N. Dobrynin, R. M. D. Brydson, T. R. Charlton, C. J. Kinane, M. D. Robertson, S. Langridge, and C. H. Marrows, Giant topological hall effect in strained Fe 0.7Co0.3Si epilayers (2013), 1312.1722, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1312. 1722

    2013 arXiv

  63. [70]

    J. Yu, Y. Liu, Y. Ke, J. Su, J. Cao, Z. Li, B. Sun, H. Bai, and W. Wang, Advanced Materials 36, 2308415 (2024), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ adma.202308415, URL https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/adma.202308415

    2024 doi

  64. [71]

    S. Hu, E. Liu, Y. Bai, M. Zhuang, W. Liu, M. Lei, Y. Zhang, G. Xu, F. Xu, and S. Mangin, Phys. Rev. B 109, 224407 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.109.224407

    2024 doi

  65. [72]

    Allenspach, A

    R. Allenspach, A. Bischof, B. Boehm, U. Drechsler, O. Reich, M. Sousa, S. Tacchi, and G. Carlotti, Phys. Rev. B 110, 014402 (2024), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.110.014402

    2024 doi

  66. [73]

    Curcic, B

    M. Curcic, B. Van Waeyenberge, A. Vansteenkiste, M. Weigand, V. Sackmann, H. Stoll, M. F¨ ahnle, T. Tyliszczak, G. Woltersdorf, C. H. Back, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 197204 (2008), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.197204

    2008 doi

  67. [74]

    P. Roy, A. Carr, T. Zhou, B. Paudel, X. Wang, D. Chen, K. T. Kang, A. Pateras, Z. Corey, S. Lin, et al., Advanced Electronic Materials 9, 2300020 (2023), 17 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ aelm.202300020, URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/abs/10.1002/ae...

    2023 doi

  68. [75]

    Galitski and I

    V. Galitski and I. B. Spielman, NATURE 494, 49 (2013), ISSN 0028-0836

    2013

  69. [77]

    X. Zhao, C. Jin, C. Wang, H. Du, J. Zang, M. Tian, R. Che, and Y. Zhang, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences 113, 4918 (2016), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1600197113, URL https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas. 1600197113

    2016 doi

  70. [78]

    J. Tang, L. Kong, W. Wang, H. Du, and M. Tian, Chi- nese Physics B 28, 087503 (2019), URL https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/1674-1056/28/8/087503

    2019 doi

  71. [79]

    M. T. Birch, D. Cort´ es-Ortu˜ no, L. A. Turnbull, M. N. Wilson, F. Groß, N. Tr¨ ager, A. Laurenson, N. Bukin, S. H. Moody, M. Weigand, et al., Nature Communica- tions 11, 1726 (2020), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-020-15474-8

    2020

  72. [80]

    P. Sahu, B. R. K. Nanda, and S. Satpathy, Phys. Rev. B 106, 224403 (2022), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.106.224403

    2022 doi

  73. [81]

    Feng, X.-Y

    Y. Feng, X.-Y. Yu, and U. Paik, Scientific Reports (2016), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34004

    2016 doi

  74. [82]

    M. B. Islam, M. Yanagida, Y. Shirai, Y. Nabetani, and K. Miyano, ACS Omega 2, 2291 (2017), pMID: 31457579, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.7b00538, URL https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.7b00538

    2017 doi

  75. [83]

    Salou, B

    M. Salou, B. Lescop, S. Rioual, A. Lebon, J. B. Youssef, and B. Rouvellou, Surface Science 602, 2901 (2008), ISSN 0039-6028, URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0039602808004792

    2008

  76. [84]

    Cheng, H

    M. Cheng, H. Fan, Y. Song, Y. Cui, and R. Wang, Dalton Trans. 46, 9201 (2017), URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1039/C7DT01289F

    2017

  77. [85]

    Medvedeva, E

    A. Medvedeva, E. Makhonina, L. Pechen, Y. Poli- tov, A. Rumyantsev, Y. Koshtyal, A. Goloveshkin, K. Maslakov, and I. Eremenko, Materials 15 (2022), ISSN 1996-1944, URL https://www.mdpi. com/1996-1944/15/22/8225

    2022

  78. [86]

    Yamashita and P

    T. Yamashita and P. Hayes, Applied Surface Sci- ence 254, 2441 (2008), ISSN 0169-4332, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0169433207013748

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.