Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Indirect Magnetoelectric Coupling via Skew Scattering by Orbital Angular Momentum

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Exchange bias in a ferromagnet/insulator/oxide trilayer can arise from electric polarization induced by orbital-momentum skew scattering, not from an antiferromagnetic layer.

desk verdict A genuinely new magnetoelectric mechanism for exchange bias in a valence-band spacer, but the single-valley justification is circular and the experimental fit is too loose to be convincing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22324 v1 pith:YDR2LK2Y submitted 2025-05-28 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Adam B. Cahaya This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall
keywords exchangebiasmagnetoelectriccouplingskewscatteringorbitalangularmomentumLaAlO3spaceroxideheterostructuresRKKYoscillationlinearresponsetheory
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 proposes that the exchange bias seen in $\mathrm{La}_{0.67}\mathrm{Sr}_{0.33}\mathrm{MnO}_3/\mathrm{LaAlO}_3/\mathrm{SrTiO}_3$ heterostructures is a magnetoelectric effect rather than the usual antiferromagnetic pinning. It treats the $\mathrm{LaAlO}_3$ spacer through its valence band, with itinerant holes scattered by the localized Mn moments through a skew-scattering term that couples to orbital angular momentum. The scattering induces an electric polarization in the spacer, and that polarization couples to the electric field of the two-dimensional electron gas at the $\mathrm{LaAlO}_3/\mathrm{SrTiO}_3$ interface. The resulting energy $V \mathbf{M}\cdot\mu_0\mathbf{H}_0$ with $\mu_0\mathbf{H}_0\approx 1\,\mathrm{T}$ shifts the magnetic hysteresis loop and reproduces the observed thickness oscillation of the exchange bias. If correct, it makes the magnetic state of this trilayer electrically addressable without any antiferromagnetic layer.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is $\boldsymbol{\phi}(\mathbf{r}) = \mathbf{p} e^2\hbar \chi(\mathbf{r})/m$, which says the static charge-current response is the spin susceptibility multiplied by the valence-band peak momentum $\mathbf{p}$. This identity turns skew scattering into an electric polarization $\mathbf{P} = (2-g)e\hbar F\,\chi(\mathbf{r})\,\mathbf{p}\times\mathbf{J}$, so the polarization inherits the oscillatory spatial structure of the RKKY-like susceptibility $\chi(\mathbf{r})$, and in the quasi-one-dimensional heterostructure it is $\chi_{\mathrm{q1D}}(z)$ with the sine-integral envelope $f(k_F z)$. The other essential piece is the Stoner-Wohlfarth treatment of $H_{\mathrm{me}}$ as an effective field $\mathbf{H}_0$, which converts the magnetoelectric energy into the hysteresis-loop shift.

What would settle it

Measure the exchange-bias field while electrostatically gating the $\mathrm{LaAlO}_3/\mathrm{SrTiO}_3$ 2DEG: the model makes $\mu_0\mathbf{H}_0$ proportional to the 2DEG charge density $\sigma$, so the bias should track gate voltage linearly with the predicted $B_0\approx 1\,\mathrm{T}$ scale; observing no such gate dependence, or a bias that persists when the orbital moment is quenched, would rule out this mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the exchange bias in $\mathrm{La}_{0.67}\mathrm{Sr}_{0.33}\mathrm{MnO}_3/\mathrm{LaAlO}_3/\mathrm{SrTiO}_3$ is driven by the magnetoelectric energy $H_{\mathrm{me}} = -\int dV\, \mathbf{P}\cdot\mathbf{E} = V\mathbf{M}\cdot\mu_0\mathbf{H}_0$. The polarization is $\mathbf{P}(z) = (2-g)e\hbar F N \chi_{\mathrm{q1D}}(z)\,\mathbf{p}\times\mathbf{J}$, produced by skew scattering of valence-band carriers off the Mn moments, and the field is $\mathbf{E}(z)=\hat{\mathbf{z}}\sigma/(2\epsilon_0)e^{-\kappa|z-h|}$, from the $\mathrm{LaAlO}_3/\mathrm{SrTiO}_3$ two-dimensional electron gas. Evaluating the linear response gives $\mu_0\mathbf{H}_0 = B_0\,\hat{\mathbf{p}}\times\hat{\mathbf{z}}\int_0^{h/a} dx\, e^{\kappa(ax-h)} f(k_F a x)$ with $B_0\approx 1\,\mathrm{T}$, so the magnetoelectric term acts as an effective field that shifts the hysteresis loop. The oscillatory factor $f(k_F a x)$ makes the bias vary with spacer thickness, matching the experimental data. The coupling is proportional to $(2-g)$, so it requires the Mn orbital moment to be not fully quenched.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two mirror-image valence-band peaks of centrosymmetric $\mathrm{LaAlO}_3$ do not cancel: the magnetoelectric energy singles out one peak, so the entire response can be modeled with a single parabolic band centered at $\mathbf{p}$; if both peaks contribute equally, the predicted polarization and exchange bias would need to be recalculated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Exchange bias in this trilayer becomes a magnetoelectric quantity, so it can in principle be controlled by the charge density of the 2DEG rather than by an antiferromagnetic pinning layer.
  • The bias field should oscillate with the $\mathrm{LaAlO}_3$ thickness through $f(k_F a x)$, allowing the Fermi wavevector of the spacer to be read off from thickness-dependent measurements.
  • Because the coupling vanishes when $g=2$, fully quenched orbital moments should suppress the effect; varying the magnetic ion species provides a direct test.
  • The sign of the shift is set by $\hat{\mathbf{p}}\times\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ and the magnetization direction, which explains the observed reversal of the bias when the cooling field is reversed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The extension to other $p$-type oxide spacers with a 2DEG on the opposite interface is natural; if the mechanism is generic, spacer polarity and band-edge location would become design knobs for oxide exchange bias.
  • A two-valley calculation that keeps both centrosymmetric peaks instead of assuming one selected peak is the most direct stress test of the parameter-free single-band result; the paper leaves that calculation implicit.
  • Because $B_0$ is proportional to the interface charge density $\sigma$, gating the 2DEG should produce a linear shift of the exchange-bias field, a measurement that could separate this magnetoelectric contribution from residual interfacial exchange.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a mechanism for exchange bias in LSMO/LAO/STO heterostructures that does not rely on an antiferromagnetic pinning layer. Treating the LAO valence band as a parabolic band centered at the R point, the authors use linear response theory to compute the spin and charge densities induced by localized Mn moments through exchange and skew-scattering interactions. They find that skew scattering by orbital angular momentum produces an electric polarization P proportional to the spin susceptibility χ(r) (Eq. 22), and that this polarization couples to the 2DEG electric field at the LAO/STO interface, producing a magnetoelectric energy Hme that shifts the hysteresis loop (Eqs. 31-33). The resulting exchange bias is claimed to agree with experimental data from Ref. [23], including its oscillatory dependence on LAO thickness.

Significance. If the mechanism were established, the paper would provide a concrete microscopic route to exchange bias without an antiferromagnet, connecting skew scattering, orbital angular momentum, and electric polarization. The linear-response framework is transparent and the paper makes explicit, falsifiable predictions for the thickness dependence of the exchange bias. However, the significance is currently undermined by a load-bearing assumption about the valence-band valley occupation that is asserted rather than derived, and by the use of unstated parameter values that control the final comparison to experiment. The work is a promising sketch but not yet a validated quantitative theory.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III B, final paragraph; Eqs. (29), (31)] The assertion that Hme selectively enhances one of the two equivalent R-point valence-band peaks and suppresses the other is circular and load-bearing. The polarization P in Eq. (29) is proportional to p × J, so the two peaks at +p and −p contribute opposite polarizations if equally occupied. Since Hme = −∫dV P·E is itself proportional to the same polarization, it cannot be used as an input to select the peak without already assuming the asymmetry it is meant to explain. The paper needs either an explicit inversion-breaking mechanism (e.g., a calculated or estimated valley splitting due to the heterostructure interfaces) or a clear argument that R and −R are the same point modulo a reciprocal lattice vector in bulk LAO, which would change the reasoning but could justify the single-band model. Without this, the predicted exchange bias can cancel identically.
  2. [Eq. (32); Fig. 2(c)] The numerical estimate B0 ≈ 1 T and the thickness dependence of the exchange bias in Fig. 2(c) depend on kF = 0.2/a and κ = 7.5/a, but the manuscript does not derive these values from the DFT band structure of LAO or from the screening properties of the 2DEG. The oscillation period of f(kF ax) is set by kF and the decay/envelope is set by κ, so the agreement in Fig. 2(c) is not a parameter-free test of the mechanism. The authors should provide a derivation or at least a consistency check of kF against the DFT valence-band dispersion and of κ against a Thomas-Fermi or Thomas-Fermi-like estimate for LAO/STO, and they should state the sensitivity of the fitted curve to these choices.
  3. [Sec. II A 1 and App. A, Eqs. (10)-(11), (A2)] The evaluation of the spin susceptibility χ(r) treats the valence-band occupancy f_{p+δk} as a filled sphere of radius kF around the band maximum p. For a valence band with ε_k = -ℏ²(k−p)²/2m and Fermi energy ε_F = -ℏ²kF²/2m, the occupied states are inside the sphere, but the susceptibility formula in Eq. (9) uses f_k − f_{k+q} over ε_{k+q} − ε_k, which is appropriate for particle-like bands; for a hole-like band the sign and limits of the integrals should be re-examined. The transition from Eq. (10) to Eq. (11) also appears to assume that both δk and δq range over the same sphere, which is not generally true when k and k+q are constrained by the Fermi functions. The authors should clarify the sign conventions and the integration ranges, since the magnitude and sign of χ(r) directly determine the polarization P and the exchange-bias field H0.
  4. [App. A, Eq. (A3)] The quasi-one-dimensional susceptibility is derived by first writing χ3D(r) and then integrating over the in-plane coordinates with ∫_z^∞ 2πr dr χ3D(r). This step relies on an exchange of integrals and a delta-function identity that is not shown, and the result appears to be for a strictly two-dimensional array of moments with only qz integration. The derivation should be presented explicitly, including the treatment of the q-integral and the conditions under which the in-plane momentum integration can be folded into χ3D. As written, the formula for χq1D(z) in Eq. (26) is not fully justified, and it is a central object for both the RKKY interaction and the exchange bias.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, after Eq. (2)] The sentence 'HJ·l is order of magnitude smaller than HJ·l' is a typo; the second term should presumably be HJ·s or the skew-scattering interaction relative to the exchange interaction.
  2. [Sec. III B, Eq. (32)] The expression for B0 contains many parameters that are introduced without clear definitions in the main text (e.g., A, V, Ms, MMn, N, σ). A table or a dedicated parameter list with values and sources would substantially improve reproducibility.
  3. [Fig. 2(b)] The caption states that the hysteresis shift depends on the relative directions of M, E, and p, but the figure does not make these directions visually explicit. Adding vectors or an inset with the geometric configuration would help the reader follow Eq. (31).
  4. [References] The DFT calculation is cited as Ref. [28-30] but no computational details (functional, k-point grid, unit cell, or convergence) are given. Since the paper relies on the valence-band maximum at the R point and the large effective mass m ≈ 92me, a more detailed description or a supplementary calculation is needed.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Two load-bearing reductions: the advertised fit to Fig. 2c is controlled by undetermined kF and κ scales, and the single-valley model is justified by the very Hme that presupposes a net polarization.

  1. self definitional [Sec. III B, final paragraph (single-band justification)]
    "Finally, it is important to note that although centrosymmetric LAO implies that its valence band has two peaks at R and −R, the magnetoelectric energy Hme will selectively enhance one peak and suppress the other. Thus, only the peak with empty states mediates interlayer exchange interactions. Consequently, the theory of a single valence band remains valid."

    The polarization that defines Hme is Eq. (29), P(z)=(2−g)eℏF N p×J χq1D(z), which is odd in the valley momentum p. In centrosymmetric LAO the valence band has equivalent extrema at R and −R, so equal occupation of the two valleys gives opposite P contributions and hence a net P, and therefore Hme=−∫P·E, that vanishes. The paper answers this by asserting that Hme itself selects one valley, but Hme is constructed from the very single-valley P whose existence is at issue. Hme is first order in J and linear in p, so at fixed J and E it shifts the two degenerate valleys by opposite energies; no splitting, occupation imbalance, or self-consistent calculation is provided.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III B, Eq. (32) and parameter list; Fig. 2c]
    "B0 = (2 − g)meJ k2 F σF N Aa / (4π2ℏϵ0MsV) ≈ 1 T. The value of B0 is estimated using σ = e/(2a2) [40], N = 1/a2, a = 3.9 Å, A = 5 mm × 3 µm and V = A × 10 nm, MMn = 2.2µB [23], Ms = 2.81 × 104 A/m [31, 33], m = 92me, I = 2.14 eV, F = I/(4kF )2, g = 1.8, kF = 0.2/a, κ = 7.5/a. ... f (kF ax) in the integration for H0 generates a spatial oscillation of the exchange bias, as observed in Ref.[23]. The agreement of the experiment and our theory is illustrated in Fig 2c."

    The predicted exchange-bias field is µ0H0 = B0 p̂ × ẑ ∫ e^{κ(ax−h)} f(kF ax) dx. Its oscillation period in LAO thickness h is set by kF and its decay by κ; these are precisely the values kF=0.2/a and κ=7.5/a listed among the parameters used to estimate B0. Neither value is independently derived in the paper from the DFT band structure (which supplies only the R-point location and m≈92me) or from an independent screening calculation for the 2DEG electric field. They are the natural controls for matching the spatial oscillation and decay of the experimental exchange-bias curve in Fig. 2c, so the advertised agreement with Ref. [23] is not a parameter-free confirmation of the period and decay; it reduces to the chosen scales.

full rationale

The formal linear-response chain from the interaction Hamiltonians to the charge and spin susceptibilities, Eqs. (1)-(22), and the subsequent construction of Hme and the Stoner-Wohlfarth loop shift, Eqs. (29)-(33), is internally consistent and is not itself circular. However, the paper's advertised comparison to experiment and its single-band reduction contain two load-bearing circular elements. First, the final agreement with the LSMO/LAO/STO exchange-bias data in Fig. 2c is controlled by the oscillatory function f(kF ax) and the exponential decay e^{κ(ax−h)}. The values kF=0.2/a and κ=7.5/a are quoted in the parameter list without independent derivation, so the period and decay of the plotted theoretical curve are inputs rather than predictions. Second, the paper justifies ignoring the −R valley by stating that Hme selectively enhances one peak and suppresses the other; but Hme is defined through the single-valley polarization P∝p×J, which cancels between equal-occupation ±R valleys. The selection argument therefore presupposes the net polarization that the model is meant to establish. The paper does contain external anchors, notably the DFT statement of the R-point valence-band character and experimental parameters such as σ, N, and Mn moments, and the self-citations [25]-[27] are not the main source of circularity. Nevertheless, because the central nonzero P and the experimental agreement both reduce, in part, to assumed valley selection and chosen kF and κ scales, a moderate-to-high circularity score is warranted.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation is self-contained linear response, but it rests on several domain assumptions and on numerical inputs (kF, κ, g, m, F) that are not all independently constrained. The single-peak selection assumption is the least supported and is load-bearing for the model. No genuinely new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • kF = 0.2/a with a=3.9 Å
    Fermi wavevector of the LAO valence band; appears in the RKKY oscillation and in B0; selected to reproduce the thickness dependence shown in Fig. 2c, with no independent source cited.
  • kappa = 7.5/a
    Screening constant for the 2DEG electric field; controls the decay of E(z) and hence the h-dependence of the exchange bias; no derivation or citation for the numerical value.
  • Mn g-factor g = 1.8
    Used in the (2-g) factors that set the strength of orbital skew scattering; chosen from a cited study of similar manganites but not independently determined for the LSMO/LAO interface.
  • Effective mass m = 92 me
    Estimated from a DFT band structure of LAO; a model input rather than fitted to exchange bias data.
  • Skew scattering strength F = I/(4kF^2)
    Determined from exchange strength I and kF via the relation from prior work [27]; not measured in this system. The notation in the parameter list is ambiguous.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The LAO band structure is replaced by a single parabolic valence band near the R-point with effective mass m=92me (Eq. 1).
    This neglects multi-band, orbital, and full BZ structure; used for all response function calculations.
  • standard math Linear response within the random phase approximation is sufficient for the spin and charge densities.
    The Kubo formula and RPA-like static susceptibilities are used without vertex corrections; standard in RKKY theory but an approximation.
  • domain assumption The skew scattering Hamiltonian HJ·l = -iF Σ (2-g)J·(q×k) with F ≈ I/(4kF^2) captures the orbital angular momentum coupling.
    This form is taken from prior work [27,34,35]; it is assumed to be the dominant orbital channel at the LSMO/LAO interface.
  • domain assumption The 2DEG electric field is exponentially screened with a constant screening parameter κ.
    Equation (30) assumes E(z) = z_hat σ/(2ε0) e^{-κ|z-h|}, ignoring band-bending and nonlinear screening details.
  • ad hoc to paper The magnetoelectric energy selectively enhances one R-point peak and suppresses the other, so a single valence band suffices.
    Asserted in Sec. III B without derivation; it is essential for validating the single-band model and explaining the cooling-field direction dependence.
  • domain assumption The discrete Mn moments can be approximated as a continuous interface density N J δ(z).
    Used in Eqs. (23)-(24) to reduce the problem to quasi-1D response functions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Indirect Magnetoelectric Coupling via Skew Scattering by Orbital Angular Momentum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YDR2LK2Y

@misc{pith2026250522324,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Indirect Magnetoelectric Coupling via Skew Scattering by Orbital Angular Momentum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YDR2LK2Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22324}
}
abstract

Recent experimental observations of exchange bias in the La$_{0.67}$Sr$_{0.33}$MnO$_{3}$/LaAlO$_{3}$/SrTiO$_{3}$ heterostructure, which lacks an intrinsic antiferromagnetic layer, have sparked theoretical investigations into the underlying mechanisms. While traditional theories suggest that exchange bias in spin valve structures is mediated by conduction electrons in metallic spacers, the transport properties of LaAlO$3$ are dominated by its valence electrons, raising new questions about the origin of this phenomenon. In this work, we propose a theoretical model where the electronic band structure of LaAlO$_3$ is treated as a valence band perturbed by skew scattering, which is sensitive to orbital angular momentum. Our analysis reveals a significant magnetoelectric effect at the La$_{0.67}$Sr$_{0.33}$MnO$_3$/LaAlO$_3$ interface, which induces a coupling between the interface magnetization and the electric field from two dimensional electron gas at LaAlO$_{3}$/SrTiO$_{3}$ interface. This magnetoelectric coupling is found to drive the observed exchange bias, highlighting the role of electric polarization in influencing the magnetic properties of the heterostructure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22324 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Band structure of LAO from DFT calculation [28– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Spin susceptibility that governs the indirect ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    C. Song, B. Cui, F. Li, X. Zhou, and F. Pan, Recent progress in voltage control of magnetism: Materials, mechanisms, and performance, Progress in Materials Sci- ence 87, 33 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [1]

    Therefore, the localized form of a dipo- lar magnetic field [25] can be used to estimate I = µ2 Bµ0/3ℏ ≈ 2.14 eV

    Spin Density Defining the exchange interaction as HJ·s ≡ − Z dr m· B, HJ·s can be interpreted as an effective magnetic field, B = (g − 1)I µB Jδ3(r), (5) acting on the itinerant spin density, where µB is the Bohr magneton. Therefore, the localized form of a dipo- lar magnetic field [25] can be used to estimate I = µ2 Bµ0/3ℏ ≈ 2.14 eV. The spin density res...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Charge Density On the other hand, the Hamiltonian term HJ·l behaves as an effective vector potential A(r), which is given by A(r) = (2 − g)mF eℏ ∇ ×Jδ3(r). (13) This vector potential interacts with the current density j(r), as described by the following Hamiltonian term HJ·l = − Z dr j(r) · A(r), (14) with the current density j(r) expressed as j(r) = eℏ m...

    work page 2024

  4. [3]

    Dieny, I

    B. Dieny, I. L. Prejbeanu, K. Garello, P. Gambardella, P. Freitas, R. Lehndorff, W. Raberg, U. Ebels, S. O. Demokritov, J. Akerman, A. Deac, P. Pirro, C. Adel- mann, A. Anane, A. V. Chumak, A. Hirohata, S. Man- gin, S. O. Valenzuela, M. C. Onba¸ slı, M. d’Aquino, G. Prenat, G. Finocchio, L. Lopez-Diaz, R. Chantrell, O. Chubykalo-Fesenko, and P. Bortolotti...

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    Torres, R

    F. Torres, R. Morales, I. K. Schuller, and M. Kiwi, Dipole-induced exchange bias, Nanoscale 9, 17074 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [5]

    Kiwi, Exchange bias theory, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 234, 584 (2001)

    M. Kiwi, Exchange bias theory, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 234, 584 (2001)

    work page 2001

  7. [6]

    R. L. Stamps, Mechanisms for exchange bias, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 33, R247 (2000)

    work page 2000

  8. [7]

    Nogu´ es and I

    J. Nogu´ es and I. K. Schuller, Exchange bias, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 192, 203 (1999)

    work page 1999

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Berkowitz and K

    A. Berkowitz and K. Takano, Exchange anisotropy — a review, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 200, 552–570 (1999)

    1999

  2. [9]

    Nogu´ es, J

    J. Nogu´ es, J. Sort, V. Langlais, V. Skumryev, S. Suri˜ nach, J. Mu˜ noz, and M. Bar´ o, Exchange bias in nanostructures, Physics Reports 422, 65–117 (2005)

    2005

  3. [10]

    A. P. Malozemoff, Random-field model of exchange anisotropy at rough ferromagnetic-antiferromagnetic in- terfaces, Phys. Rev. B 35, 3679 (1987)

    1987

  4. [11]

    T. C. Schulthess and W. H. Butler, Consequences of spin- flop coupling in exchange biased films, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4516 (1998)

    1998

  5. [12]

    N. C. Koon, Calculations of exchange bias in thin films with ferromagnetic/antiferromagnetic interfaces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 4865 (1997)

    1997

  6. [13]

    B´ ea, M

    H. B´ ea, M. Bibes, S. Cherifi, F. Nolting, B. Warot- Fonrose, S. Fusil, G. Herranz, C. Deranlot, E. Jacquet, K. Bouzehouane, and A. Barth´ el´ emy, Tunnel magnetore- sistance and robust room temperature exchange bias with multiferroic BiFeO3 epitaxial thin films, Applied Phys...

    2006 doi

  7. [14]

    B´ ea, M

    H. B´ ea, M. Bibes, F. Ott, B. Dup´ e, X.-H. Zhu, S. Petit, S. Fusil, C. Deranlot, K. Bouzehouane, and A. Barth´ el´ emy, Mechanisms of exchange bias with multi- ferroic bifeo 3 epitaxial thin films, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 017204 (2008)

    2008

  8. [15]

    J. Dho, X. Qi, H. Kim, J. MacManus-Driscoll, and M. Blamire, Large electric polarization and exchange bias in multiferroic BiFeO 3, Advanced Materials 18, 1445–1448 (2006)

    2006

  9. [16]

    Y.-H. Chu, L. W. Martin, M. B. Holcomb, M. Gajek, S.-J. Han, Q. He, N. Balke, C.-H. Yang, D. Lee, W. Hu, Q. Zhan, P.-L. Yang, A. Fraile-Rodr ´ ıguez, A. Scholl, S. X. Wang, and R. Ramesh, Electric-field control of local fer- romagnetism using a magnetoelectric multiferroic, Na...

    2008

  10. [17]

    L. W. Martin, Y.-H. Chu, M. B. Holcomb, M. Huijben, P. Yu, S.-J. Han, D. Lee, S. X. Wang, and R. Ramesh, Nanoscale control of exchange bias with BiFeO 3 thin films, Nano Letters 8, 2050–2055 (2008)

    2008

  11. [18]

    S. Dong, K. Yamauchi, S. Yunoki, R. Yu, S. Liang, A. Moreo, J.-M. Liu, S. Picozzi, and E. Dagotto, Ex- change bias driven by the dzyaloshinskii-moriya interac- tion and ferroelectric polarization atg-type antiferromag- netic perovskite interfaces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 127201 (2009)

    2009

  12. [19]

    Padhan and W

    P. Padhan and W. Prellier, Direct observation of pinned/biased moments in magnetic superlattices, Phys. Rev. B 72, 104416 (2005)

    2005

  13. [20]

    Y. Choi, Y. Z. Yoo, O. Chmaissem, A. Ullah, S. Kolesnik, C. W. Kimball, D. Haskel, J. S. Jiang, and S. D. Bader, Ferromagnetic Mn moments at SrRuO 3/SrMnO3 inter- faces, Applied Physics Letters 91, 10.1063/1.2753100 (2007)

    2007 doi

  14. [21]

    S. M. Wu, S. A. Cybart, D. Yi, J. M. Parker, R. Ramesh, and R. C. Dynes, Full electric control of exchange bias, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 067202 (2013)

    2013

  15. [22]

    A. Chen, D. Zheng, B. Fang, Y. Wen, Y. Li, and X.-X. Zhang, Electrical manipulation of magnetization in mag- netic heterostructures with perpendicular anisotropy, 7 Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 562, 169753 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Nozaki, Y

    T. Nozaki, Y. Shiota, S. Miwa, S. Murakami, F. Bonell, S. Ishibashi, H. Kubota, K. Yakushiji, T. Saruya, A. Fukushima, S. Yuasa, T. Shinjo, and Y. Suzuki, Electric-field-induced ferromagnetic resonance excitation in an ultrathin ferromagnetic metal layer, Nature Physics 8, 491 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    W. M. L¨ u, S. Saha, X. R. Wang, Z. Q. Liu, K. Gopinad- han, A. Annadi, S. W. Zeng, Z. Huang, B. C. Bao, C. X. Cong, M. Venkatesan, T. Yu, J. M. D. Coey, Ar- iando, and T. Venkatesan, Long-range magnetic coupling across a polar insulating layer, Nature Communications 7, 11015 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Lee, C.-R

    Y.-J. Lee, C.-R. Chang, T.-M. Hong, C. Ho, and M.-T. Lin, Long-range exchange bias through a metal spacer, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 240, 264 (2002), 4th International Symposium on Metallic Multi- layers

    2002

  19. [27]

    A. B. Cahaya, A. A. Anderson, A. Azhar, and M. A. Ma- jidi, Electrically controllable exchange bias via interface magnetoelectric effect, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics , 1 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    A. A. Anderson, A. Azhar, A. B. Cahaya, and M. A. Ma- jidi, Rkky interaction in spin valve structure with LaAlO3 spacer, Materials Science Forum 1080, 131 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    A. B. Cahaya, A. O. Leon, M. R. Aliabad, and G. E. W. Bauer, Equilibrium current vortices in simple metals doped with rare earths, Phys. Rev. B103, 064433 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    2024.1, SCM, http://www.scm.com/

    B. 2024.1, SCM, http://www.scm.com/

    2024

  23. [31]

    te Velde and E

    G. te Velde and E. J. Baerends, Precise density-functional method for periodic structures, Phys. Rev. B 44, 7888 (1991)

    1991

  24. [32]

    E. S. Kadantsev, R. Klooster, P. L. De Boeij, and T. Ziegler, The formulation and implementation of an- alytic energy gradients for periodic density functional calculations with STO/NAO bloch basis set, Molecular Physics 105, 2583–2596 (2007)

    2007

  25. [33]

    Materials Project, http://www.materialsproject.org

  26. [34]

    Benam, N

    M. Benam, N. Abdoshahi, and M. M. Sarmazdeh, Ab ini- tio study of the effect of pressure on the structural and electronic properties of cubic LaAlO3 by density function theory using GGA, LDA and PBEsol exchange correla- tion potentials, Physica B, Condensed Matter 446, 32 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    A. Jain, S. P. Ong, G. Hautier, W. Chen, W. D. Richards, S. Dacek, S. Cholia, D. Gunter, D. Skinner, G. Ceder, and K. a. Persson, The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation, APL Materials 1, 011002 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Kondo, Anomalous hall effect and magnetoresistance of ferromagnetic metals, Progress of Theoretical Physics 27, 772 (1962)

    J. Kondo, Anomalous hall effect and magnetoresistance of ferromagnetic metals, Progress of Theoretical Physics 27, 772 (1962)

    1962

  29. [37]

    Fert and A

    A. Fert and A. Friederich, Skew scattering by rare-earth impurities in silver, gold, and aluminum, Phys. Rev. B 13, 397 (1976)

    1976

  30. [38]

    Cherif, A

    K. Cherif, A. Belkahla, A. Dhahri, and J. Dhahri, Chromium effects on the structural and electrical prop- erties in La0.7Ba0.2Ca0.1Mn1−xCrxO3, Journal of Super- conductivity and Novel Magnetism 28, 2241 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Kittel, Indirect exchange interactions in metals (Aca- demic Press, 1969) pp

    C. Kittel, Indirect exchange interactions in metals (Aca- demic Press, 1969) pp. 1–26

    1969

  32. [40]

    Yafet, Ruderman-kittel-kasuya-yosida range function of a one-dimensional free-electron gas, Phys

    Y. Yafet, Ruderman-kittel-kasuya-yosida range function of a one-dimensional free-electron gas, Phys. Rev. B 36, 3948 (1987)

    1987

  33. [41]

    Resta, Thomas-fermi dielectric screening in semicon- ductors, Phys

    R. Resta, Thomas-fermi dielectric screening in semicon- ductors, Phys. Rev. B 16, 2717 (1977)

    1977

  34. [42]

    Asmara, A

    T. Asmara, A. Annadi, I. Santoso, P. Gogoi, A. Kotlov, H. Omer, M. Motapothula, M. Breese, M. R¨ ubhausen, T. Venkatesan, Ariando, and A. Rusydi, Mechanisms of charge transfer and redistribution in LaAlO3/SrTiO3 re- vealed by high-energy optical conductivity, Nature Com- munic...

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    (A1) can be evaluated for two cases: (a) three dimensional sys- tem with a single impurity and (b) magnetic heterostruc- ture with quasi-one dimensional symmetry

    Spin-spin Susceptibility The static spin susceptibility χij(r) = X kq eiq·r fk − fk+q εk+q − εk ≡ δijχ. (A1) can be evaluated for two cases: (a) three dimensional sys- tem with a single impurity and (b) magnetic heterostruc- ture with quasi-one dimensional symmetry. Three Dime...

  36. [44]

    Charge-current Density On the other hand, the interaction HJ·l can be written as an effective vector potential A(r) = (2 − g)mF eℏ ∇ ×Jδ3(r). (A4) acting on current j(r) = eℏ m X kqα eiq·r k + q 2 a† k+qαakα (A5) as can be seen below H J·l = − Z dr j(r) · A(r) = − X ijk ϵijk Z...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.