Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Twist-Tunable Spin-to-Charge Conversion and Valley-Contrasting Effects in Graphene/TMDC Heterostructures

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Twisting graphene against a TMDC monolayer drives the valley Hall conductivity to a quantized plateau of exactly ±2e²/h, with the sign selected by the twist angle.

desk verdict A useful twist-angle parameter scan for spin-charge conversion in graphene/TMDC, but the headline quantized valley Hall result rests on a shaky definition that needs fixing before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00650 v1 pith:RYMYQ62S submitted 2025-07-01 cond-mat.mes-hall

I. Wojciechowska , A. Dyrdal This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords twistronicsgraphene/TMDCheterostructuresspinHalleffectvalleyRashba-EdelsteinBerrycurvatureproximityspin-orbitcouplingvalleytronics
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 asks how rotating graphene relative to a monolayer of MoSe₂, WSe₂, MoS₂, or WS₂ changes the spin- and valley-dependent transport of the proximitized graphene. Using an effective low-energy Hamiltonian whose parameters come from earlier density-functional calculations, the authors derive analytical Kubo–Green function formulas for the spin Hall conductivity, current-induced spin polarization, valley Hall conductivity, and valley spin polarization. Their central result is that the valley Hall conductivity takes the quantized value ±2e²/h inside the energy gap, with the sign toggled by the twist angle, while the spin Hall response is strongly twist-modulated but completely independent of the Rashba angle. If correct, this makes the relative twist a practical dial for switching between opposite valley Hall regimes without changing materials.

What carries the argument

The Hamiltonian H^ν = H_0^ν + H_Δ + H_I^ν + H_R^ν combines a Dirac kinetic term with velocity v, a staggered sublattice potential Δ, a valley-Zeeman intrinsic spin-orbit coupling $λ_I^{{A,B}}$, and a generalized Rashba coupling with amplitude λ_R and angle φ. The paper feeds twist-dependent parameter tables from density-functional theory into Kubo–Green function formulas: the spin Hall conductivity is the sum over valleys of transverse spin-current responses, the valley Hall conductivity is their difference and reduces to the per-valley Berry-curvature integral, and the nonequilibrium spin polarization is obtained from the retarded–advanced Green function product. The twist enters only through Δ, λ, λ_R, and φ, which is what converts the same Hamiltonian into different responses at different θ.

What would settle it

Calculate the full orbital Hall conductivity (not just the Berry-curvature difference) for t-Gr/MoS₂ with the same Hamiltonian; if the ±2e²/h plateau is absent or shifts, the claimed quantization is an artifact of the definition. In experiment, a Kerr-rotation measurement of the valley Hall effect that fails to show a sign change when the twist is varied across the predicted angles would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the valley Hall conductivity of a graphene/TMDC heterostructure, defined as the difference of per-valley Kubo conductivities and evaluated in the clean limit, is quantized to ±2e²/h when the Fermi level lies in the gap, and which of the two values appears is controlled by the relative twist angle. The same twist angle strongly modulates the spin Hall conductivity and the Rashba–Edelstein spin polarization, but the spin Hall conductivity does not depend on the Rashba angle φ, which only rotates the spin-momentum locking. The quantization follows from the opposite Berry curvatures at K and K′; the total Chern number remains zero, so no anomalous Hall effect appears, and the valley-contrasting response is what remains.

Load-bearing premise

The quantized valley Hall plateau rests on identifying the valley Hall conductivity with the difference of per-valley Berry-curvature integrals, which the paper itself calls a special case of the valley orbital Hall effect whose consistent theory is still under development.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the four TMDC substrates considered, the same crystal can show σ_VH = +2e²/h at one twist angle and −2e²/h at another, with the gap location in energy shifting accordingly.
  • The spin Hall conductivity vanishes when the Fermi level sits in the band gap, because there is no topological contribution from the occupied sea; only Fermi-surface states contribute.
  • The Rashba–Edelstein response acquires a component parallel to the applied electric field whose sign reverses when the Rashba angle is negative, which happens at specific twist angles.
  • The valley spin polarization (valley Rashba–Edelstein effect) is independent of the relaxation time within the clean-limit approximation, so it is expected to be robust against a constant relaxation-time disorder model.
  • Because the spin Hall conductivity is independent of the Rashba angle, tuning φ cannot tune the spin Hall response; only the twist angle θ changes it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if the quantization survives the still-in-development orbital Hall theory, the ±2e²/h plateau provides a natural electrical switch between two valley-polarized states, possibly readable as a sign change in a nonlocal Hall-bar voltage.
  • Editorial extension: the paper's clean-limit, constant-τ calculation leaves open whether impurity vertex corrections renormalize the spin Hall conductivity; the authors cite work showing such corrections are order-unity in graphene, so testing the valley Hall plateau in disordered samples would separate intrinsic from vertex-dominated behavior.
  • Editorial extension: a direct experimental check would be Kerr-rotation microscopy on t-Gr/MoS₂, which should show a sign flip of the valley Hall signal between θ ≈ 1° and θ ≈ 29.3° if the Berry-curvature difference is the right observable.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies low-energy transport in graphene/TMDC heterostructures as a function of the relative twist angle. Using an effective four-band Hamiltonian whose parameters are taken from DFT fits in Ref. 18, the authors derive analytical (or semi-analytical) expressions in the constant-relaxation-time approximation for the spin Hall conductivity, the current-induced spin polarization (Rashba-Edelstein effect), the valley Hall conductivity, and the valley-resolved spin polarization. The headline claim is that the valley Hall conductivity exhibits a quantized plateau of ±2 e^2/h, with the sign and occurrence controlled by the twist angle. The paper also finds that the spin Hall conductivity is independent of the Rashba angle.

Significance. If the valley Hall quantization is correct, the paper offers a concrete twist-tunable platform for valleytronics, based on a simple model with externally fitted parameters rather than a transport fit. Strengths include the use of published DFT parameters, explicit analytical expressions for the spin Hall conductivity, and a frank statement of the clean-limit, no-vertex-correction approximation. The main significance is nevertheless curtailed by the unresolved relationship between the calculated spin-resolved conductivity and the physical charge valley Hall current, and by the withholding of the analytical formulas on which the central plateau claim rests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eqs. (21)-(23)] Eq. (21) defines σ_VH as σ^{s_z K}_{xy} − σ^{s_z K'}_{xy}, i.e., with a spin-current label, while Eq. (22), the displayed Kubo conductivity, contains no spin operator. If Eq. (21) is literal, the plotted quantity is a spin-valley Hall conductivity, not the charge valley Hall conductivity that would produce a valley-polarized charge current. If Eq. (22) was intended, the step from Eq. (22) to the Berry-curvature expression Eq. (23) is omitted. Since the paper itself notes in Sec. 4 that the definition is a special case of the valley orbital Hall effect and that the consistent theory is still under development, this ambiguity is load-bearing for the central claim. Please clarify which quantity is computed and correct the notation.
  2. [Section 4, Eqs. (22)-(23) and Figure 6] The paper states that 'all figures have been ploted based on analytical formulas obtained based on Eq. (22)' but that the formulas are 'long and awkward we decided not to show them.' This prevents an independent check of the central ±2 e^2/h plateau. The reduction of the Green-function Kubo formula, Eq. (22), to the band-projected Berry-curvature integral, Eq. (23), is not trivial when Rashba coupling is present and spin is not conserved. Please provide the full analytical derivation (or a supplementary file) and state the parameter conditions under which the valley Hall conductivity is exactly quantized to ±2 e^2/h.
  3. [Section 4, last paragraph, and Section 5] The sentence 'Valley spin conductivity does not depend on the relaxation time, thus it is roboust to the effects of impurities and other disorder' overstates the case. The absence of τ in Eq. (23) refers to the clean-limit intrinsic formula; robustness to disorder requires an evaluation of vertex corrections and intervalley scattering, which are not performed here. The paper's own Section 5 limitation paragraph acknowledges the omission of vertex corrections. Please either remove the robustness claim or qualify it as applying only in the clean limit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] In the text introducing the Hamiltonian, the list of TMDCs reads 'MoSe2, WSe2, MoS2 and WSe2' and should end with 'WS2'.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption lists 't-Gr/MoSe2, t-Gr/WSe2, t-Gr/MoS2 and t-Gr/WSe2'; the last entry should be 't-Gr/WS2'.
  3. [Section 4, after Eq. (23)] The sentence 'In the case of intrinsic valley Hall effect the Eq. (13) leads to the expression connected to the Berry curvature' appears to refer to Eq. (22) or Eq. (23), not to the auxiliary quantity ζ in Eq. (13).
  4. [Section 4, second paragraph] The phrase 'valley Hall effect can appear even in the case of vanishing Berry curvature, providing that it is nonzero locally at distinct valleys' is confusing; since Eq. (23) is a Berry-curvature integral, a nonzero local Berry curvature is required, and what vanishes is the total (valley-summed) anomalous Hall response. Please rephrase for clarity.
  5. [Throughout] There are numerous typos, including 'ploted' in Figure 6, 'roboust' in Section 4, 'eeffect' in the Section 4 heading, 'in-plain' in Figure 4 text, and 't-GrWSe2' in the Introduction. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spin/valley Hall results are computed from an external model Hamiltonian and standard linear-response formulas, not fitted to the predicted quantities.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained as a model-based linear-response calculation. The low-energy Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) and its twist-dependent parameters are taken from external DFT work (Ref. 18); no parameter in this paper is fitted to the transport quantities being predicted. The spin Hall, Rashba-Edelstein, and valley Hall conductivities are computed from standard Kubo/Green-function expressions (Eqs. 8-23), and the analytical formulas are derived, not assumed. Self-citations (Refs. 40-43) are used only to attribute standard linear-response definitions and do not function as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole support for an alternative-forbidding premise. The Sec. 4 caveat that the valley Hall definition is a special case of the yet-undeveloped orbital Hall theory is an acknowledged physical-interpretation limitation, not a circular step; the ±2e^2/h plateau is a computed consequence of the per-valley Berry curvature integrals for the given Hamiltonian parameters, not an input. Thus no prediction reduces by construction to its inputs.

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

The central claims rest on externally fitted Hamiltonian parameters and on the assumption that standard clean-limit linear response captures the physics. No new entities are introduced. The main hidden load is the transferability of the DFT-fitted model to all twist angles and the neglect of disorder and vertex corrections.

free parameters (5)
  • lambda(theta), intrinsic spin-orbit coupling (valley-Zeeman) for each TMDC = twist-dependent, from DFT fits of Ref 18 (not tabulated here)
    Controls the gap and Berry curvature; the valley Hall plateau ±2e^2/h exists when |Delta| > |lambda| in the gap.
  • lambda_R(theta), Rashba spin-orbit coupling amplitude = twist-dependent, from Ref 18
    Determines spin Hall and Edelstein magnitudes; nearly twist-independent according to Fig. 1.
  • Delta(theta), staggered sublattice potential = twist-dependent, from Ref 18
    Sets the mass term; combined with lambda it produces the quantized valley Hall regime.
  • phi_R(theta), Rashba angle = twist-dependent, up to about 30 deg for MoSe2 (Fig. 1)
    Controls the in-plane spin texture and the parallel component of the Edelstein spin polarization.
  • tau, constant relaxation time = not specified; S figures show S proportional to tau (Sec. 3 after Eq. 20)
    REE spin polarization is proportional to tau; the paper does not fix its value or include vertex corrections.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Kubo/Green function linear response formalism gives the transport coefficients (Eqs. 9, 20, 22).
    Accepted linear response theory in the clean limit; no derivation details are provided.
  • domain assumption The effective low-energy Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) with parameters from DFT captures proximity SOC in twisted graphene/TMDC.
    The model is taken from Ref 18; it may miss moire band reconstruction and intervalley scattering at larger twist angles.
  • domain assumption The clean-limit constant-tau approximation without impurity vertex corrections is adequate for SHC and REE.
    Acknowledged in Sec. 5; recent Refs 56,57 report strong disorder renormalization of the spin Hall effect in twisted vdW systems, so quantitative SHC values may change.
  • domain assumption Valley Hall conductivity can be defined via per-valley Berry curvature integrals (Eqs. 21-23).
    The paper itself calls this 'a special case of the valley orbital Hall effect' and says the consistent orbital Hall theory is 'still under development' (Sec. 4).
  • domain assumption The DFT parameter sets satisfy Delta*lambda > 0 for the angles used.
    Stated after Eq. (17); the SHC formulas assume this sign condition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Twist-Tunable Spin-to-Charge Conversion and Valley-Contrasting Effects in Graphene/TMDC Heterostructures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RYMYQ62S

@misc{pith2026250700650,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Twist-Tunable Spin-to-Charge Conversion and Valley-Contrasting Effects in Graphene/TMDC Heterostructures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RYMYQ62S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00650}
}
abstract

We consider graphene deposited on monolayers of such transition-metal dichalcogenides like MoSe$_2$, WSe$_2$, MoS$_2$, and WS$_2$. Our key objective is to study the impact of relative twist angle between the monolayers on the proximity-induced spin-orbital effects and orbital phenomena in graphene. To do this we used an effective model Hamiltonian for low-energy states, taken from available literature. The Green function formalism is used to calculate analytical formula for the spin Hall effect and nonequilibrium spin polarization in the system. We also determine the valley Hall and valley polarization effects, and their dependence on the twist angle. We have shown that the valley Hall conductivity can take the quantized value equal to $\pm 2 e^2/h$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00650 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic picture of graphene twisted by the angle θ with respect to the monolayer of TMDC (side and top view) and parameters defining Hamiltonian (1) as a function of twisted angle θ for four semiconducting transition metal dichalcogenides: MoSe2, WSe2, MoS2, and WS2. Data are taken from Ref.(18). presented in Sec. 5. 2 Model We consider graphene deposited on a monolayer of one of the semiconducting transition meta… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The energy dispersions plotted for t-Gr/WSe2 for the twist angle θ = 0deg and the Rashba angle φ = 0deg and for t-Gr/MoS2 for θ = 1deg and the Rashba angle φ = 6.2deg as well as for θ = 29.3deg and the Rashba angle φ = 18.4deg. The color of the band lines corresponds to the sz spin expectation value whereas the in-plain spin expectation values have been indicated on energy contours. The values of parameters λ, λR, φ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The spin Hall conductivity of graphene deposited on semiconducting TMDC monolayer ( i.e., t-Gr/MoSe2, t-Gr/WSe2, t-Gr/MoS2 and t-Gr/WSe2) as a function of the Fermi energy, µ, for certain twist angle between graphene and TMDC, θ. The values of parameters λ, λR, φR and ∆ for the certain twist angle, θ, are taken from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The x and y components of nonequilibrium spin polarization plotted as a function of Fermi energy, µ, for specific values of the twist angle, θ. The values of parameters λ, λR, φR and ∆ for the certain twist angle, θ, are taken from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The band structure of t-Gr/MoS2 for the four selected twist angles, θ, and the associated Berry curvatures plotted around the K and K’ points, respectively. The colours of individual Berry curvatures correspond to the associated energy band. The values of parameters λ,…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Valley Hall conductivity of graphene deposited on considered semiconducting TMDC monolayer as a function of the Fermi energy, µ, for certain twist angle between graphene and TMDC, θ. The values of parameters λ, λR, φR and ∆ for the certain twist angle, θ, are taken fro…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The x and y components of nonequilibrium valley spin polarization plotted as a function of Fermi energy, µ, for specific values of the twist angle, θ. The values of parameters λ, λR, φR and ∆ for the certain twist angle, θ, are taken from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wang, Z. et al. Strong interface-induced spin–orbit interaction in graphene on WS2. Nat. Commun. 6, 8339, DOI: 10.1038/ncomms9339 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms9339 2015

  2. [3]

    Avsar, A. et al. Spin–orbit proximity effect in graphene. Nat. Commun. 5, 4875, DOI: 10.1038/ncomms5875 (2014)

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms5875 2014

  3. [4]

    Mendes, J. B. S. et al. Spin-current to charge-current conversion and magnetoresistance in a hybrid structure of graphene and a topological insulator. Phys. Rev. B 89, 140406, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.89.140406 (2014)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.89.140406 2014

  4. [5]

    Cao, Y . et al. Unconventional superconductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices. Nature 556, 43–50, DOI: 10.1038/nature26160 (2018)

    doi:10.1038/nature26160 2018

  5. [6]

    F., Fabian, J., Kawakami, R

    Sierra, J. F., Fabian, J., Kawakami, R. K., Roche, S. & Valenzuela, S. O. Van der Waals heterostructures for spintronics and opto-spintronics. Nat. Nanotechnol. 16, 856–868, DOI: 10.1038/s41565-021-00921-7 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41565-021-00921-7 2021

  6. [7]

    Kou, X. et al. Graphene-based topological insulator heterostructures. Nat. Commun. 6, 8474, DOI: 10.1038/ncomms9474 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms9474 2015

  7. [8]

    & Jhi, S.-H

    Jin, K.-H. & Jhi, S.-H. Strong enhancement of spin–orbit interaction in graphene by monolayer WS2. Phys. Rev. B 87, 075442, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.075442 (2013)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.87.075442 2013

  8. [9]

    & Wang, L

    Song, Z.-G., Zhai, X. & Wang, L. Proximity-induced spin–orbit coupling in graphene–topological insulator heterostructure. Carbon 126, 187–193, DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2017.10.021 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2017.10.021 2018

Show all 55 references
  1. [10]

    & Wang, S

    Yang, H., Tse, W.-K. & Wang, S. Proximity effects induced in graphene by topological insulators: First-principles calculations. Phys. Rev. B 88, 235426, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.235426 (2013)

    2013 doi

  2. [11]

    Geim, A. K. & Grigorieva, I. V . Van der Waals heterostructures.Nature 499, 419–425, DOI: 10.1038/nature12385 (2013)

    2013 doi

  3. [12]

    Van der Waals heterostructures and devices

    Liu, Y .et al. Van der Waals heterostructures and devices. Nat. Rev. Mater. 1, 16042, DOI: 10.1038/natrevmats.2016.42 (2016)

    2016 doi

  4. [13]

    M., Kim, P

    Ajayan, P. M., Kim, P. & Banerjee, K. Two-dimensional van der Waals materials. Phys. Today 69, 38–44, DOI: 10.1063/PT.3.3297 (2016)

    2016 doi

  5. [14]

    & Kar, S

    Hennighausen, Z. & Kar, S. Twistronics: a turning point in 2D quantum materials. Electron. Struct. 3, 014004, DOI: 10.1088/2516-1075/abd957 (2021)

    2021 doi

  6. [15]

    Shen, C. et al. Correlated states in twisted bilayer graphene and related moiré systems. Nat. Phys. 18, 108–115, DOI: 10.1038/s41567-021-01469-8 (2022)

    2022 doi

  7. [16]

    & Kaxiras, E

    Carr, S., Fang, S. & Kaxiras, E. Twistronics: Manipulating the electronic properties of two-dimensional layered structures through twist angle. Nat. Rev. Mater. 5, 748–763, DOI: 10.1038/s41578-020-0207-3 (2020)

    2020 doi

  8. [17]

    Proximity induced room temperature ferromagnetism in graphene probed with spin currents

    Leutenantsmeyer, Johannes Christian and Kaverzin, Alexey A and Wojtaszek, Magdalena and van Wees, Bart J. Proximity induced room temperature ferromagnetism in graphene probed with spin currents. 2D Mater. 4, 014001, DOI: 10.1088/ 2053-1583/4/1/014001 (2016)

    2016

  9. [18]

    and Nikoliic, Branislav K

    Zollner, Klaus and Joao, Simao M. and Nikoliic, Branislav K. and Fabian, Jaroslav. Twist- and gate-tunable proximity spin-orbit coupling, spin relaxation anisotropy, and charge-to-spin conversion in heterostructures of graphene and transition metal dichalcogenides. Phys. Rev. ...

    2023 doi

  10. [19]

    Zihlmann, S. et al. Large spin relaxation anisotropy and valley-Zeeman spin-orbit coupling in WSe2/graphene/h-BN heterostructures. Phys. Rev. B 97, 075434, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.97.075434 (2018)

    2018 doi

  11. [20]

    Incommensurability-induced sub-ballistic narrow-band-states in twisted bilayer graphene

    Gonçalves, Miguel and Olyaei, Hadi Z and Amorim, Bruno and Mondaini, Rubem and Ribeiro, Pedro and Castro, Eduardo V. Incommensurability-induced sub-ballistic narrow-band-states in twisted bilayer graphene. 2D Mater. 9, 011001, DOI: 10.1088/2053-1583/ac3259 (2021)

    2021 doi

  12. [21]

    Flat bands in twisted double bilayer graphene

    Chebrolu, Narasimha Raju and Chittari, Bheema Lingam and Jung, Jeil. Flat bands in twisted double bilayer graphene. Phys. Rev. B 99, 235417, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.99.235417 (2019). 11/13

    2019 doi

  13. [22]

    Efimkin, D. K. & MacDonald, A. H. Helical network model for twisted bilayer graphene. Phys. Rev. B 98, 035404, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.98.035404 (2018)

    2018 doi

  14. [23]

    Xian, L. et al. Realization of nearly dispersionless bands with strong orbital anisotropy from destructive interference in twisted bilayer MoS2. Nat. Commun. 12, 5644 (2021)

    2021

  15. [24]

    Jin, C. et al. Stripe phases in WSe2/WS2 moirésuperlattices. Nat. Mater. 20, 940–944 (2021)

    2021

  16. [25]

    & Fabian, J

    Naimer, T., Gmitra, M. & Fabian, J. Tuning proximity spin-orbit coupling in graphene/NbSe2 heterostructures via twist angle. Phys. Rev. B 109, 205109, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.109.205109 (2024)

    2024 doi

  17. [27]

    & Burkard, G

    David, A., Rakyta, P., Kormányos, A. & Burkard, G. Induced spin-orbit coupling in twisted graphene–transition metal dichalcogenide heterobilayers: Twistronics meets spintronics. Phys. Rev. B 100, 085412, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.100. 085412 (2019). Publisher: American Physical Society

    2019 doi

  18. [28]

    & Koshino, M

    Li, Y . & Koshino, M. Twist-angle dependence of the proximity spin-orbit coupling in graphene on transition-metal dichalcogenides. Phys. Rev. B 99, 075438, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.99.075438 (2019)

    2019 doi

  19. [29]

    Graphene on transition-metal dichalcogenides: A platform for proximity spin-orbit physics and optospintronics

    Gmitra, Martin and Fabian, Jaroslav. Graphene on transition-metal dichalcogenides: A platform for proximity spin-orbit physics and optospintronics. Phys. Rev. B 92, 155403, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.155403 (2015)

    2015 doi

  20. [30]

    Dyakonov, M. I. & Perel, V . I. Possibility of Orienting Electron Spins with Current.JETP Lett. 13, 657 (1971)

    1971

  21. [31]

    Hirsch, J. E. Spin Hall Effect. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1834–1837, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.1834 (1999)

    1999 doi

  22. [32]

    G., Lyanda-Geller, Y

    Aronov, A. G., Lyanda-Geller, Y . B. & Pikus, G. E. Spin polarization of electrons by an electric current.JETP .73, 537 (1991)

    1991

  23. [33]

    Edelstein, V . M. Spin polarization of conduction electrons induced by electric current in two-dimensional asymmetric electron systems. Solid State Commun. 73, 233–235, DOI: 10.1016/0038-1098(90)90963-C (1990)

    1990 doi

  24. [34]

    Golub, L. E. & Ivchenko, E. L. Spin orientation by electric current in (110) quantum wells. Phys. Rev. B 84, 115303, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.115303 (2011)

    2011 doi

  25. [35]

    Ganichev, S. D. et al. Conversion of Spin into Directed Electric Current in Quantum Wells. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4358–4361, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.4358 (2001)

    2001 doi

  26. [36]

    Ganichev, S. D. et al. Spin-galvanic effect - Nature. Nature 417, 153–156, DOI: 10.1038/417153a (2002)

    2002 doi

  27. [37]

    and Wunderlich, J

    Sinova, Jairo and Valenzuela, Sergio O. and Wunderlich, J. and Back, C. H. and Jungwirth, T. Spin Hall effects. Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1213–1260, DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.87.1213 (2015)

    2015 doi

  28. [38]

    A., Gorkov, L

    Abrikosov, A. A., Gorkov, L. P. & Dzyaloshinski, I. E.Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics (Courier Corporation, 1963)

    1963

  29. [39]

    Mahan, G. D. Many-Particle Physics, third ed. (Springer US, 2000)

    2000

  30. [40]

    & Barna´s, J

    Dyrdał, A. & Barna´s, J. Anomalous, spin, and valley Hall effects in graphene deposited on ferromagnetic substrates. 2D Mater. 4, 034003, DOI: 10.1088/2053-1583/aa7bac (2017)

    2017 doi

  31. [41]

    & Dyrdał, A

    Wojciechowska, I. & Dyrdał, A. Intrinsic anomalous, spin and valley Hall effects in ’ex-so-tic’ van-der-Waals structures. Sci. Reports 14, 23808, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-74596-x (2024)

    2024 doi

  32. [42]

    & Dugaev, V

    Dyrdał, A., Barnaıfmmode \acutes\else ´s\fi, J. & Dugaev, V . K. Current-induced spin polarization in graphene due to Rashba spin-orbit interaction. Phys. Rev. B 89, 075422, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.89.075422 (2014). Publisher: American Physical Society

    2014 doi

  33. [43]

    & Barna´s, J

    Dyrdał, A. & Barna´s, J. Current-induced spin polarization and spin-orbit torque in graphene. Phys. Rev. B 92, 165404, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.165404 (2015)

    2015 doi

  34. [44]

    Lee, S. et al. Charge-to-spin conversion in twisted \mathrmgraphene/\mathrmWSe_2 heterostructures. Phys. Rev. B 106, 165420, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.106.165420 (2022). Publisher: American Physical Society

    2022 doi

  35. [45]

    & Schliemann, J

    Trushin, M. & Schliemann, J. Anisotropic current-induced spin accumulation in the two-dimensional electron gas with spin-orbit coupling. Phys. Rev. B 75, 155323, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.75.155323 (2007)

    2007 doi

  36. [46]

    D., Trushin, M

    Ganichev, S. D., Trushin, M. & Schliemann, J. Spin polarisation by current , in Spintronics Handbook, Second Edition (ed. Evgeny Y . Tsymbal and Igor Zutic), Second Edition, 269–315 (CRC Press, 2019). 12/13

    2019

  37. [47]

    F., McGill, K

    Mak, K. F., McGill, K. L., Park, J. & McEuen, P. L. The valley Hall effect in MoS2 transistors. Science 344, 1489–1492, DOI: 10.1126/science.1250140 (2014). https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1250140

    2014 doi

  38. [48]

    Lee, J., Mak, K. F. & Shan, J. Electrical control of the valley Hall effect in bilayer MoS2 transistors. Nat. Nanotechnol. 11, 421–425 (2016)

    2016

  39. [49]

    Islam, S. F. & Benjamin, C. A scheme to realize the quantum spin-valley Hall effect in monolayer graphene. Carbon 110, 304–312, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2016.09.025 (2016)

    2016 doi

  40. [50]

    & Vignale, G

    Bhowal, S. & Vignale, G. Orbital Hall effect as an alternative to valley Hall effect in gapped graphene. Phys. Rev. B 103, 195309, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.103.195309 (2021)

    2021 doi

  41. [51]

    & Vignale, G

    Sun, H., Kazantsev, A., Principi, A. & Vignale, G. Nonconserved density accumulations in orbital Hall transport: Insights from linear response theory. Phys. Rev. B 111, 075432, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.111.075432 (2025)

    2025 doi

  42. [52]

    Veneri, A., Rappoport, T. G. & Ferreira, A. Extrinsic Orbital Hall Effect: Orbital Skew Scattering and Crossover between Diffusive and Intrinsic Orbital Transport. Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 136201, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.136201 (2025)

    2025 doi

  43. [53]

    & Manchon, A

    Li, H., Wang, X. & Manchon, A. Valley-dependent spin-orbit torques in two-dimensional hexagonal crystals. Phys. Rev. B 93, 035417, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.035417 (2016)

    2016 doi

  44. [54]

    Inoue, J.-i., Bauer, G. E. W. & Molenkamp, L. W. Suppression of the persistent spin Hall current by defect scattering. Phys. Rev. B 70, 041303, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.70.041303 (2004)

    2004 doi

  45. [55]

    A., Hill, J

    Sinitsyn, N. A., Hill, J. E., Min, H., Sinova, J. & MacDonald, A. H. Charge and Spin Hall Conductivity in Metallic Graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 106804, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.106804 (2006)

    2006 doi

  46. [56]

    Veneri, A., Perkins, D. T. S., Péterfalvi, C. G. & Ferreira, A. Twist angle controlled collinear Edelstein effect in van der Waals heterostructures. Phys. Rev. B 106, L081406, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.106.L081406 (2022). Publisher: American Physical Society

    2022 doi

  47. [57]

    Perkins, D. T. S., Veneri, A. & Ferreira, A. Spin Hall effect: Symmetry breaking, twisting, and giant disorder renormaliza- tion. Phys. Rev. B 109, L241404, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.109.L241404 (2024). Acknowledgements This work has been supported by the Norwegian Financial Mecha...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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