Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Revealing the Dominance of the Orbital Hall Effect over Spin in Transition Metal Heterostructures

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 Orbital Hall effect dominates spin conversion in transition-metal heterostructures

desk verdict Broad and useful survey, but the beta=0.23 subtraction in Eq. (2) does not square with the paper's own 90 nA/109 nA numbers, so the orbital-dominance claim needs support. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08425 v2 pith:TWH5AOVB submitted 2025-06-10 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

J. L. Costa , E. Santos , J. B. S. Mendes , A. Azevedo This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords orbitalHalleffectinversespinpumpingferromagneticresonancetransitionmetalsorbitronicsspin-to-chargeconversion
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 claims that in spin-pumping measurements on YIG/Pt(2)/X(5) stacks, where X is one of 19 transition metals, the measured charge current comes mostly from the inverse orbital Hall effect (IOHE) in the X layer, not from the inverse spin Hall effect (ISHE). The authors extract the IOHE contribution by subtracting the fixed Pt(2) ISHE signal and a scaled fraction of the X-layer ISHE signal. If correct, this means orbital angular momentum transport is the dominant route for spin-to-charge conversion in these systems, and materials previously considered weak spin-Hall metals can still be strong orbital-to-charge converters. The results also provide experimental confirmation of negative orbital Hall conductivities in several metals, matching first-principles calculations in most cases.

What carries the argument

The key object is Eq. (2), the two-layer decomposition $V_{\mathrm{tot}} = V_{\mathrm{ISHE}}^{\mathrm{Pt(2)}} + (V_{\mathrm{IOHE}}^{\mathrm{X(5)}} + \beta V_{\mathrm{ISHE}}^{\mathrm{X(5)}})$, in which $\beta = 0.23$ is the fraction of spin current transmitted through the Pt(2)/X interface, calibrated from the Pt-thickness dependence of YIG/Pt($t$). This decomposition is what turns the total FMR-driven voltage into an isolated IOHE estimate for each metal. The physical carrier is the coupled spin-orbital current generated by Pt's strong spin-orbit coupling, which injects orbital angular momentum into the X layer.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to fabricate YIG/Pt($t$)/X(5) for a range of Pt thicknesses $t$ for several X metals and test whether the extracted IOHE value is independent of $t$. If the extracted IOHE changes with $t$, the $\beta = 0.23$ transmission model is wrong; a complementary check would be to insert a thin Cu layer at the Pt/X interface and see whether the orbital signal disappears while the spin signal remains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the IOHE is the dominant mechanism converting the pumped spin-orbital current into charge in YIG/Pt(2)/X(5) heterostructures. For most of the 19 transition metals studied, the extracted IOHE current is larger than the ISHE current from the same layer, and in some cases, such as Mo, the orbital signal exceeds 260 nA while the spin signal is below 13 nA. The authors show that the experimental ISHE values largely track theoretical spin Hall conductivities, while the IOHE values show larger deviations, which they attribute to the sensitivity of orbital transport to crystal texture, disorder, and interfaces. They also report negative IOHE signals for Ag and Au, corroborating predictions of negative orbital Hall conductivities that earlier tight-binding models missed.

Load-bearing premise

The whole extraction rests on assuming that the YIG/Pt(2)/X(5) signal is exactly the Pt(2) ISHE signal plus the X-layer IOHE signal plus 23% of the X-layer ISHE signal, with that 23% transmission fraction remaining the same for every one of the 19 metals.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measured charge current in YIG/Pt(2)/X stacks cannot be used to infer spin Hall angles without subtracting the IOHE contribution.
  • Metals with weak spin-orbit coupling, such as Mo, Zr, and Nb, become viable orbital-to-charge converters for orbitronic devices.
  • Negative orbital Hall conductivities in Ag and Au are experimentally observed, not artifacts of a particular theoretical model.
  • Spin pumping with ferromagnetic resonance is a practical tool for screening orbital Hall materials across broad families of elements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $\beta = 0.23$ calibration is not transferable across the 19 metals, the relative ranking of IOHE signals could change; a direct test would be to repeat the measurement with several Pt thicknesses for a few X metals and check that the extracted IOHE is stable.
  • The dominance of orbital conversion suggests that optimizing orbital texture and Fermi-level position may matter more than maximizing atomic spin-orbit coupling for charge-current generation, which would shift materials-design priorities toward light and abundant elements.
  • A natural extension is to probe the same metals by terahertz emission or spin-torque ferromagnetic resonance to see whether orbital dominance persists when the detection mechanism is different.
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 manuscript reports spin-pumping ferromagnetic resonance measurements on YIG/X(5) bilayers and YIG/Pt(2)/X(5) trilayers for 19 transition metals, aiming to separate inverse spin Hall (ISHE) and inverse orbital Hall (IOHE) contributions. The central claim is that the orbital contribution overwhelmingly dominates over the spin response in the trilayer charge-to-current conversion, and that negative orbital Hall conductivities occur in some metals. The extraction uses Eq. (2), which subtracts the fixed Pt(2) ISHE signal and a fraction β=0.23 of the X-layer ISHE signal, with β interpreted as the fraction of the pumped spin current that reaches the Pt/X interface. The authors compare their experimental ISHE and IOHE values with first-principles calculations from Go et al. and report qualitative agreement in trends, with discrepancies for several elements.

Significance. If the central extraction were reliable, this would be a valuable systematic dataset: a single study spanning 3d, 4d, and 5d transition metals, with explicit comparison to first-principles spin and orbital Hall conductivities, inclusion of linewidth-broadening data, and a Cu control. The confirmation of negative orbital Hall conductivity in Au, Ag, and possibly other metals, and the demonstration that light metals such as Mo and Zr can produce strong IOHE, would be of genuine interest to the orbitronics community. However, the quantitative claim of orbital dominance rests entirely on the calibration of β in Eq. (2), and that calibration is neither derived nor internally consistent with the reported numbers. Until this is resolved, the headline claim is not supported by the presented analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [II, Eq. (2) and Fig. 1(c)] The calibration β=0.23 is not supported by the data shown. The text reports I_ISHE^Pt(2)=90 nA and states that the charge current saturates at 109 nA as the Pt thickness increases, so the ratio of these values is 0.83, not 0.23. More fundamentally, Fig. 1(c) plots the ISHE charge current generated within the Pt layer itself, which scales approximately as tanh(t/2λ_s) and is not equal to the spin current transmitted to the top Pt/X interface. The 23% value therefore does not follow from the thickness dependence as stated. Because Eq. (2) uses this unsupported β, the extracted IOHE values in Fig. 3(d) are not reliable; for strong-ISHE metals such as W, Ta, Ir, and Pd, using the ratio 0.83 would more than triple the subtracted ISHE term and could change the magnitude or even the sign of the extracted IOHE. The authors must provide a derivation of β from the thickness-dependent data, with the assumed spin-current profile stated explicitly, and validate the transferability of β across the 19 materials.
  2. [II and III, Eq. (2) and reference YIG/X(5) samples] The reference signal V_ISHE^X(5) is measured in a YIG/X(5) bilayer, but in YIG/Pt(2)/X(5) the spin current that enters X is governed by the YIG/Pt and Pt/X interface spin conductances, including possible spin memory loss at the Pt/X interface. Those interface properties are material-dependent, so a single scalar β cannot convert the YIG/X bilayer ISHE signal into the X-layer ISHE contribution in the trilayer unless the interfaces are explicitly characterized. The Cu control demonstrates only that Cu has negligible IOHE and ISHE in this geometry; it does not calibrate β for other materials. Please provide an explicit spin-transport model for the trilayer and state the assumptions on Pt/X spin transmission and spin memory loss.
  3. [III, Fig. 3(d) and conclusions] No error bars, sample-to-sample reproducibility data, or uncertainties from the Lorentzian fits are reported. The abstract's claim that the orbital contribution 'overwhelmingly dominates' is based on point estimates, and Fig. 3(d) uses a vertical scale three times larger than Fig. 3(b), which visually exaggerates the orbital dominance. Quantitative confidence intervals for the extracted IOHE values are necessary before this claim can be assessed, especially given the sensitivity of the subtraction in Eq. (2) to the value of β.
  4. [II and III, magnetic 3d metals] For the magnetic X elements (Fe, Co, Ni, Cr), the manuscript states that a Cu(5) spacer was introduced in series A to avoid magnetic coupling. The reference signal labeled V_ISHE^X(5) for these elements is therefore measured in YIG/Cu(5)/X(5), not in YIG/X(5), and the inset in Fig. 2 confirms this geometry. This reference does not represent the ISHE of a bare X layer and does not describe the spin current that would reach X in the YIG/Pt(2)/X trilayer. Using these values in Eq. (2) for Fe, Co, Ni, and Cr is inconsistent with the models used for the other 15 elements, and the extracted IOHE values for these four elements are therefore not directly comparable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [II, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) contains a factor f (frequency) but the text defines h_rf as the amplitude of the microwave magnetic field; the equation appears to omit h_rf and to use the symbol L_pxz, while the text defines p_yz. Please clarify the notation and verify the dimensional consistency of Eq. (1).
  2. [References] The reference numbering jumps from [26] to [28], so reference [27] is missing; please renumber or insert the intended citation.
  3. [II, paragraph after Eq. (2)] The sentence 'The left and right signals correspond the ISHE contributions' should read 'correspond to the ISHE contributions'.
  4. [III, 3d transition metals paragraph] The phrase 'the vertical scale of the IOHE is three times larger' appears only in the caption of Fig. 3; please state this explicitly in the main text or adjust the figure so the comparison is not misleading.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation chain: IOHE extraction is a subtraction model with independent references and external first-principles benchmarks; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim is that the orbital contribution dominates the spin response in the measured YIG/Pt(2)/X(5) series. The derivation chain is: (i) the YIG/X(5) ISHE reference is measured directly; (ii) the YIG/Pt(2) ISHE reference is measured directly; (iii) the total YIG/Pt(2)/X(5) signal is measured; and (iv) Eq. (2) decomposes the total into a Pt ISHE term, an X ISHE term scaled by beta, and the residual IOHE term. The residual is then compared with the independent first-principles orbital Hall conductivities of D. Go et al., which are not fitted to the experimental data. The extracted IOHE values and their signs, including negative values for Au and Ag, are therefore not equivalent to the model inputs by construction. The beta parameter is calibrated from a separate Pt-thickness series, not from the YIG/Pt/X series whose decomposition is claimed. The Cu control invokes the authors' prior Ref. [11], but it is also directly observed in this work, and the central comparison across the other 18 metals does not rest on that citation. The internal inconsistency between beta = 0.23 and the reported 90 nA / 109 nA values is a correctness and calibration concern, not a circular reduction: Eq. (2) does not define its own inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work in a way that forces the conclusion. Thus no step meets the evidentiary standard for circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The extraction of IOHE relies mainly on the additive model of Eq. (2), the measured calibration beta = 0.23, and assumptions about negligible conversion in the Pt reference and Cu spacer. No new particles, fields, or dimensions are introduced; the first-principles comparison is external to the paper.

free parameters (2)
  • beta (spin-current transmission fraction through 2 nm Pt) = 0.23
    Determined from the Pt-thickness saturation curve in Fig. 1(c) and used in Eq. (2) to subtract the X-layer ISHE contribution when extracting IOHE. No uncertainty is quoted, and it is assumed to apply to all Pt/X interfaces.
  • Per-material Lorentzian amplitude I_S = Not tabulated; shown as peak currents in Fig. 2
    Every SP-FMR curve is fitted with I = I_S Delta_H^2 / [(H - H_r)^2 + Delta_H^2]; the resulting amplitudes are the raw material-specific signals used in Eq. (2). These are fitted outputs of the measurements rather than ad hoc theoretical parameters.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The measured voltage in YIG/Pt/X is a linear superposition: V_tot = V_ISHE^Pt(2) + V_IOHE^X(5) + beta V_ISHE^X(5).
    Eq. (2) assumes independent additive contributions and no interface coupling effects that alter conversion efficiencies.
  • ad hoc to paper The fraction of spin current reaching the Pt/X interface equals beta = 0.23 for all X.
    Fig. 1(c) calibrates beta only with Pt thickness; the paper assumes this value transfers to all 19 transition metal interfaces without explicit measurement.
  • domain assumption The YIG/Pt(2) reference signal contains only ISHE and no significant IOHE contribution from Pt.
    Used in Eq. (2); if Pt(2) itself produces orbital-to-charge conversion under these conditions, the fixed contribution is misattributed.
  • domain assumption The ISHE signal measured in YIG/X(5) bilayers, scaled by beta, represents the spin contribution from X inside the YIG/Pt(2)/X(5) trilayer.
    Assumes identical spin injection and conversion in bilayer and trilayer geometries apart from the beta attenuation factor.
  • domain assumption Cu has negligible ISHE and IOHE in these experiments.
    Taken from Ref. [11] and needed because Cu(5) spacers are inserted for magnetic X = Fe, Co, Ni, and Cr.
  • standard math The ISHE voltage is described by the standard spin-pumping expression in Eq. (1).
    Adapted from Tserkovnyak et al. and Arana et al.; this is the established framework for bulk-mediated spin-to-charge conversion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revealing the Dominance of the Orbital Hall Effect over Spin in Transition Metal Heterostructures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TWH5AOVB

@misc{pith2026250608425,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revealing the Dominance of the Orbital Hall Effect over Spin in Transition Metal Heterostructures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TWH5AOVB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08425}
}
read the original abstract

We study inverse spin and orbital Hall effects in 19 transition metals using spin-pumping driven by ferromagnetic resonance. Spin-to-charge conversion was measured in YIG/X(5), while orbital-to-charge conversion was probed in YIG/Pt(2)/X(5) heterostructures. Here, X represents the different transition metals. Surprisingly, the orbital contribution overwhelmingly dominates over the spin response, clarifying the challenge of disentangling these effects. Our results largely agree with first-principles predictions for spin and orbital Hall conductivities but reveal discrepancies in select materials. These findings emphasize the fundamental role of the orbital Hall effect, and position orbitronics as a pivotal frontier in condensed matter physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08425 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) shows the spin Hall conductivity values calculated from first principles by D. Go et al30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Coexistent multifractal mesoscopic fluctuations in Integer Quantum Hall Transition and in Orbital Hall Transition

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Charge and orbital transmission fluctuations at the integer quantum Hall transition are both multifractal and track each other in this tight-binding nanowire model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M. I. Dyakonov, V. I. Perel. Current -induced spin orientation of electrons in semiconductors. Phys. Lett. A. 35, 6 (1971)

    work page 1971

  2. [2]

    J. E. Hirsch. Spin Hall Effect. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1834 (1999)

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    Y. K. Kato, R. C. Myers, A. C. Gossard, and D. D. Awschalom. Observation of the Spin Hall Effect in Semiconductors. Science 306, 5703 (2004)

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    S. A. Wolf, D. D. Awscha lom, R. A. Buhrman, J. M. Daughton, S. Von Molnár, M. L. Roukes, A. Y. Chtchelkanova, and D. M. Treger. Spintronics: A spin-based electronics vision for the future. Science 294, 5546 (2001)

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    Jungwirth, J

    T. Jungwirth, J. Wunderlich, and K. Olejník. Spin Hall effect devices. Nature Materials 11, 382–390, (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Sinova, S

    J. Sinova, S. O. Valenzuela, J. Wunderlich, C. H. Back, and T. Jungwirth . Spin Hall effects. Reviews of Modern Physics, 87, 1213 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, and S. -C. Zhang. Orbitronics: The Intrinsic Orbital Current in 𝑝-Doped Silicon. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 066601 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    D. Go, D. Jo, H. -W. Lee, M. Kläui, and Y. Mokrousov. Orbitronics: Orbital currents in solids. EPL 135 37001 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    D. Go, D. Jo, C. Kim, and H. -W. Lee. Intrinsic Spin and Orbital Hall Effects from Orbital Texture. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 086602 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Tanaka, H

    T. Tanaka, H. Kontani, M. Naito, T. Naito, D. S. Hirashima, K. Yamada, and J. Inoue. Intrinsic spin Hall effect and orbital Hall effect in 4 𝑑 and 5𝑑 transition metals. Phys. Rev. B 77, 165117 (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    Santos, J

    E. Santos, J. E. Abrão, D. Go, L. K. Assis, Y. Mokrousov, J. B. S. Mendes, and A. Azevedo. Inverse Orbital Torque via Spin -Orbital Intertwined States. Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 014069 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Santos, J

    E. Santos, J. E. Abrão, A. S. Vieira, J. B. S. Mendes, R. Rodríguez-Suárez, and A. Azevedo. Exploring orbital - charge conversion mediated by interfaces with CuOx through spin-orbital pumping. Phys. Rev. B 109, 014420 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Y.-G. Choi, D. Jo, K. -H. Ko, D. Go, K. -H. Kim, H. G. Park, C. Kim, B. -C. Min, G. -M. Choi, and H. -W. Lee. Observation of the orbital Hall effect in a light metal Ti. Nature 619, 52–56, (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Santos, J

    E. Santos, J. E. Abrão, J. L. Costa, J. G. S. Santos, K. R. Mello, A. S. Vieira, T. C. R. Rocha, T. J. A. Mori, R. O. R. Cunha, J. B. S. Mendes, and A. Azevedo. Bulk and Interface Effects Based on Rashba-like States in Ti and Ru Nanoscale- Thick Films: Implications for Orbital...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Santos, J

    E. Santos, J. E. Abrão, J. L. Costa, J. G. S. Santos, G. Rodrigues-Junior, J. B. S Mendes, and A. Azevedo. Negative orbital Hall effect in germanium. Phys. Rev. Appli ed 22, 064071 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    J. E. Abrão, E. Santos, J. L. Costa, J. G. S. Santos, J. B. S. Mendes, and A. Azevedo. Anomalous spin and orbital Hall phenomena in antiferromagnetic systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 026702 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    T. P. Cysne, L. M. Canonico, M. Costa, R. B. Muniz, T. G. Rappoport. Orbitronics in Two -dimensional Materials. arXiv: 2502.12339 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Veneri, T

    A. Veneri, T. G. Rappoport, and A. Ferreira. Extrinsic Orbital Hall Effect: Orbital Skew Scattering and Crossover between Diffusive and Intrinsic Orbital Transport. Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 136201 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Gupta, C

    R. Gupta, C. Bouard, F. Kammerbauer, J. O. Ledesma - Martin, A. Bose, I. Kononenko, S. Martin, P. Usé, G. Jakob, M. Drouard, and M. Kläui. Harnessing orbital Hall effect in spin–orbit torque MRAM. Nature Commun., 16, 130 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    J. Xu, D. Zheng, M. Tang, B. He, M. Yang, H. Li, Y. Li, A. Chen, S. Zhang, Z. Qiu, X. Zhang. Magnetic memory driven by orbital current. arXiv: 2504.05780 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    S. Ding, A. Ross, D. Go, L. Baldrati, Z. Ren, F. Freimuth, S. Becker, F. Kammerbauer, and J. Yang et al. Harnessing orbital -to-spin conversion of interfacial orbital currents for efficient spin-orbit torques. Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 177201 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    D. L, D. Go, H. -J. Park, W. Jeong, H. -W. Ko, D. Yun, D. Jo, S. Lee, G. Go, J. H. Oh, K. -J. Kim, B.-G. Park, B.-C. Min, H. C. Koo, H. -W. Lee, O. Lee, and K. -J. Lee. Orbital torque in magnetic bilayers. Nature Commun . 12, n. 6710 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    L. Onsager. Reciprocal Relations in Irreversib le Processes. I. Phys. Rev. 37, 405 (1931)

    1931

  16. [24]

    Kashiki, H

    H. Kashiki, H. Hayashi, D. Go, Y. Mokrousov, and K. Ando. Violation of local reciprocity in charge -orbital interconversion. arXiv: 2504.05139 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Hayashi, D

    H. Hayashi, D. Go, S. Haku, Y. Mokrousov, and K. Ando. Observation of orbital pumping. Nature Electronics 7, 646–652 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    P. Wang, Z. Feng, Y. Yang, D. Zhang, Q. Liu, Z. Xu, Z. Jia, Y. Wu, G. Yu, X. Xu, and Y. Jiang. Inverse orbital Hall effect and orbitronic terahertz emission observed in the materials with weak spin -orbit coupling. npj Quantum Materials 8, art. 28 (2023)

    2023

  19. [28]

    Salemi, and P

    L. Salemi, and P. M. Oppeneer. First -principles theory of intrinsic spin and orbital Hall and Nernst effects in metallic monoatomic crystals. Phys. Rev. Mater. 6, 095001 (2022)

    2022

  20. [29]

    Kontani, T

    H. Kontani, T. Tanaka, D. Hirashima, K. Yamada, and J. Inoue. Giant orbital Hall effect in transition metals: Origin of large spin and anomalous Hall effects. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 016601 (2009)

    2009

  21. [30]

    D. Go, H. -W. Lee, P. M. Oppeneer, S. Blügel, and Y. Mokrousov. First-principles calculation of orbital Hall effect by Wannier interpolation: Role of orbital dependence of the anomalous position. Phys. Rev. B 109, 174435 (2024)

    2024

  22. [31]

    Tserkovnyak, A

    Y. Tserkovnyak, A. Brataas, G. E. W. Bauer. Spin 8 pumping and magnetization dynamics in metallic multilayers. Phys. Rev. B 66, 224403 (2002)

    2002

  23. [32]

    Arana, M

    M. Arana, M. Gamino, E. F. Silva, V. M. T. S. Barthem, D. Givord, A. Azevedo, and S. M. Rezende. Spin to charge current conversion by the inverse spin Hall effect in the metallic antiferromagnet Mn₂Au at room temperature. Phys. Rev. B 98, 144431 (2018)

    2018

  24. [33]

    D. Qu, S. Y. Huang, and C. L. Chien. Inverse spin Hall effect in Cr: Independence of antiferromagnetic ordering. Phys. Rev. B 92, 020418(R) (2015)

    2015

  25. [34]

    C. Du, H. Wang, P. C. Hammel, and F. Yang. Y₃Fe₅O₁₂ spin pumping for quantitative understanding of pure spin transport and spin Hall effect in a broad range of materials. Journal of Applied Physics 117, 17, 172603 (2015)

    2015

  26. [35]

    H. L. Wang, C. H. Du, Y. Pu, R. Adur, P. C. Hammel, and F. Y. Yang. Scaling of Spin Hall Angle in 3d, 4d, and 5d Metals from Y₃Fe₅O₁₂/Metal Spin Pumping. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 197201 (2014)

    2014

  27. [36]

    X. Sui, C. Wang, J. Kim, J. Wang, S. H. Rhim, W. Duan, and N. Kioussis. Giant enhancement of the intrinsic spin Hall conductivity i n β-tungsten via substitutional doping. Phys. Rev. B 96, 241105(R) (2017)

    2017

  28. [37]

    D. Choi, B. Wang, S. Chung, X. Liu, A. Darbal, A. Wise, N. T. Nuhfer, K. Barmak, A. P. Warren, K. R. Coffey, and M. F. Toney. Phase, grain structure, stress, and resistivity of sputter-deposited tungsten films. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 29, 051512 (2011)

    2011

  29. [38]

    Moriya, M

    H. Moriya, M. Taniguchi, D. Jo, D. Go, N. Soya, H. Hayashi, Y. Mokrousov, H. -W. Lee, and K. Ando. Observation of Long -Range Current -Induced Torque in Ni/Pt Bilayers. Nano Lett. 24, 6459–6464 (2024)

    2024

  30. [39]

    S. S. Mishra, J. Lourembam, D. J. X. Lin, and R. Singh. Active ballistic orbital transport in Ni/Pt heterostructure. Nature Commun. 15, 4568 (2024). 9 Figure 1 10 Figure 2 11 Figure 3 12 Figure 4

    2024

Pith tools

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