Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Spin Polarization driven by Itinerant Orbital Angular Momentum in van der Waals Heterostructures

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that in low-symmetry transition-metal dichalcogenides, current-induced itinerant orbital angular momentum exceeds the spin response by three orders of magnitude and, when coupled to a ferromagnet, transfers across the…

desk verdict A clean model calculation of proximity-induced spin and orbital densities in TMD/FM stacks, but the claim that itinerant OAM drives the spin signal is not separated from direct spin leakage. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12587 v1 pith:T7MYX7ZB submitted 2025-07-16 cond-mat.mes-hall

Luis M. Canonico , Jose H. García , Aron W. Cummings , Stephan Roche This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords itinerantorbitalangularmomentumRashba-Edelsteineffectspinpolarizationtransition-metaldichalcogenidesvanderWaalsheterostructuresspin-orbittorqueKubo-Bastinformalism1Td-MoTe2
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 attempts to establish that, in low-symmetry transition-metal dichalcogenide monolayers such as 1Td-MoTe2, the orbital angular momentum carried by moving electrons — its 'itinerant' part — is the dominant response to an applied current, exceeding the spin response by roughly three orders of magnitude. It then argues that this itinerant orbital angular momentum, created by the orbital Rashba-Edelstein effect, can cross a van der Waals interface into a ferromagnet that by itself has no orbital or spin response, producing out-of-plane spin densities in the ferromagnet. If correct, this would supply a microscopic mechanism for the out-of-plane anti-damping torques seen in recent TMD/ferromagnet experiments and point toward magnetization control without heavy metals.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the real-space 'itinerant' OAM operator, which defines orbital angular momentum from position and velocity operators (and Green's functions) rather than from atomic-site matrix elements. This operator is inserted into the Kubo-Bastin formula for the susceptibility, and the Green's functions are expanded in Chebyshev polynomials via the kernel polynomial method. It is paired with a minimal tight-binding Hamiltonian containing py and dyz orbitals per site for the TMD and a Slater-Koster px/py/pz ferromagnet; the fact that py and dyz have zero atom-centered OAM means the calculated dominance of the itinerant part is built into the model.

What would settle it

A first-principles calculation of the charge-to-orbital conversion in 1Td-MoTe2 using the full set of atomic orbitals and the modern theory of orbital magnetization: if the atom-centered or full-manifold orbital response comes within an order of magnitude of the itinerant response, or exceeds it, the paper's claim that itinerant OAM dominates would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that itinerant orbital angular momentum, not spin or atom-centered orbital moment, is the dominant source of electrically generated angular momentum in low-symmetry TMDs. Using a real-space formulation of the OAM operator combined with the Kubo-Bastin linear-response formula, the authors compute current-induced spin and orbital susceptibilities for the minimal two-orbital model of 1Td-MoTe2 and find the itinerant OAM response about a thousand times larger than the spin response. When this TMD is coupled to a ferromagnet modeled with px, py, pz orbitals on a square lattice, which has vanishing intrinsic spin and orbital responses, the itinerant OAM generated in the TMD transfers across the interface and imprints an out-of-plane spin density in the ferromagnet, with the spin density roughly four times larger than the atom-centered orbital density. The authors conclude that the itinerant OAM mechanism, particularly when the TMD and ferromagnet bands hybridize near the Q point, explains the observed out-of-plane spin torques and provides an engineering route for magnetization control.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that the real-space 'itinerant' angular momentum formula is the correct definition of orbital angular momentum for these materials, and that the simplified model containing only py and dyz orbitals captures the low-energy physics of 1Td-MoTe2; because those orbitals carry no atomic-site angular momentum by construction, the model itself ensures the itinerant part dominates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Charge-to-angular-momentum conversion in low-symmetry TMDs is dominated by itinerant OAM, so spin-orbit torques in such systems should be analyzed with the full OAM operator rather than atom-centered orbital moments.
  • A TMD with negligible intrinsic atomic OAM can still inject orbital angular momentum into an adjacent ferromagnet, producing out-of-plane spin densities that can act on magnetization; hybridization near the Q point maximizes the effect.
  • Reversing the displacement field, changing the sign of the symmetry-breaking parameter, reverses both spin and orbital susceptibilities, giving an electrostatic handle to switch the sign of the induced torque.
  • The mechanism offers a path to field-free magnetization switching in low-symmetry TMD/ferromagnet heterostructures without relying on heavy metals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication not tested in the paper: the three-orders-of-magnitude ratio depends on the chosen OAM operator and on restricting the model to py and dyz orbitals; a full-orbital DFT calculation with the modern theory of orbital magnetization could either confirm or shrink it.
  • A natural next experiment is gating a TMD/ferromagnet stack and measuring the sign of the out-of-plane torque: if the OREE picture is right, the torque sign should follow the displacement-field reversal of the Berry curvature dipole.
  • The same framework should apply to other low-symmetry 2D materials such as 1Td-WTe2 and TaIrTe4, where out-of-plane OAM and antidamping torques have been reported, and to orbital torque in light-element systems.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates current-induced orbital and spin densities in low-symmetry transition-metal dichalcogenide monolayers, specifically 1Td-MoTe2, using the Kubo-Bastin linear-response formalism combined with the kernel polynomial method and a real-space representation of the itinerant orbital angular momentum operator. The authors report that the itinerant OAM response exceeds the spin response by about three orders of magnitude in the isolated monolayer, and that in a TMD/ferromagnet heterostructure the itinerant OAM generated by the orbital Rashba-Edelstein effect transfers across the interface and produces out-of-plane spin density in the ferromagnet. The paper concludes that itinerant OAM is the dominant electrically generated angular momentum channel and proposes this as a mechanism for magnetization control.

Significance. If demonstrated, the work would be significant for orbitronics and for proposals to control magnetization without heavy metals. The strengths of the paper are its use of standard linear-response machinery, tight-binding parameters taken from prior DFT-based work, and the absence of any fitting of the calculated responses to the headline ratio. The energy-resolved spin and orbital susceptibilities are presented clearly, and the dependence on the inversion-breaking parameter is checked. However, the central claims are weakened by the minimal model's orbital content, which guarantees a vanishing ACA contribution, and by the lack of a causal separation in the heterostructure calculation between direct spin leakage from the TMD and the claimed OAM transfer mechanism. These issues are load-bearing for the title's claim that spin polarization is driven by itinerant OAM.

major comments (3)
  1. [Orbital Rashba-Edelstein Effect in 1Td TMDs; Eq. (3)] The minimal model of Eq. (3) contains only py and dyz orbitals, and the text states that the ACA matrix elements of Lz are zero for these orbitals. The conclusion that itinerant OAM dominates charge-to-orbital conversion is therefore partly guaranteed by the choice of basis and does not test the claim against the full orbital manifold of 1Td-MoTe2. To establish the 'three orders of magnitude' statement as a material property rather than a model artifact, the authors should include orbitals with nonzero atom-centered OAM, for example dxy/dx2-y2 or other d orbitals, or use a DFT-derived tight-binding model containing the full orbital manifold, and compare the ACA and itinerant susceptibilities in that setting.
  2. [Methodology; Eq. (2)] The real-space itinerant OAM operator in Eq. (2) is one of several definitions discussed in Refs. 56-58, and the decomposition into ACA and itinerant parts is operator-dependent. The manuscript does not justify why Eq. (2) is the physically correct representation of OAM for these systems, nor does it show that the predicted dominance of itinerant OAM is robust against the alternative definitions. A comparison of the itinerant susceptibility obtained from Eq. (2) with the approaches of Refs. 56-58 would quantify this uncertainty; as written, the headline ratio may reflect the choice of operator rather than a robust physical property.
  3. [Orbital-driven spin polarization in van der Waals heterostructures; Fig. 2] The heterostructure section claims that any spin density induced in the FM arises from hybridization with the TMD, and then attributes that spin density to itinerant OAM transfer. However, the isolated TMD already possesses a nonzero current-induced spin susceptibility (Fig. 1(c), blue), and the FM has no SOC and no intrinsic spin response. When the TMD and FM hybridize, the spin-polarized TMD Bloch states acquire weight on FM sites, so a nonzero Sz projected onto the FM is expected from direct spin leakage alone, with no OAM transfer or orbital-to-spin conversion involved. The argument that the spin density is about four times larger than the ACA orbital density does not rule out this direct spin-leakage channel. To support the causal claim, the authors should separate the direct spin-leakage contribution from the OAM-mediated contribution, for example by computing the FM spin density with the TMD spin response suppressed or by decomposing the FM spin density into contributions from the TMD spinor components.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2(e)] The caption contains a typo: 'show s' should be 'shows'.
  2. [Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract and conclusion state that the mechanism can induce magnetization dynamics, but the paper computes static linear-response susceptibilities and does not calculate torques or magnetization dynamics. Please qualify this statement or explicitly connect the computed susceptibilities to torque expressions.
  3. [Fig. 2(e), strong hybridization] The strong-hybridization case uses η = 108 meV, which is twenty times larger than the weak-hybridization value of 5.4 meV. The physical correspondence of this value to a displacement field or structural distortion should be clarified, since it is far outside the range used for the isolated monolayer.
  4. [Methodology, Figs. 1-2] The main text does not state the KPM numerical parameters, such as system size, number of Chebyshev moments, and the broadening used in the Green's function expansion. These should be given explicitly or with a clear reference to the Supplemental Material so that convergence of the reported susceptibilities can be assessed.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Itinerant-vs-ACA OAM dominance is fixed by the orbital basis choice, and the quantitative OAM operator is imported from the authors' own prior work without benchmarking against alternatives.

  1. self definitional [Orbital Rashba-Edelstein Effect in 1Td TMDs, paragraph after Eq. (3), before Fig. 1(b)]
    "Since matrix elements of the Lz operator within the ACA representation are zero for the orbitals in the model described by Eq. (3) (py and dyz), it implies that these orbitals cannot form a linear combination with non-zero atomic-like OAM, and hence the itinerant OAM will dominate the charge-to-orbital angular momentum conversion in this model."

    The model's active space contains only py and dyz orbitals. Lz connects py to px and dyz to dxz, neither of which is included, so the ACA contribution is identically zero by construction. Saying that 'the itinerant OAM will dominate' is thus a restatement of the basis truncation, not a derived result. The paper explicitly presents this implication as the justification for the dominance claim. The later three-orders-of-magnitude comparison with spin susceptibility is a genuine computation, but the 'itinerant versus localized' framing—central to the paper's narrative—is fixed by the choice of orbitals rather than demonstrated by the calculation.

  2. self citation load bearing [Methodology, paragraph introducing Eq. (2)]
    "a real-space representation of this operator, which considers the Green's function representation of the off-diagonal matrix elements of the position operator rα, has been introduced in Ref. 51 to study the transport of itinerant OAM in disordered systems. It is given by [Eq. (2)] ... This formula allows for an exact representation of the itinerant components of the OAM operator and enables the real-space study of the current-induced itinerant OAM."

    All quantitative OAM responses, including the headline factor of 10^3 over the spin response, are computed with Eq. (2), which is taken from the authors' own Ref. 51. The paper acknowledges that several alternative OAM definitions exist (Refs. 29, 56-58) but does not compare results obtained with them. The claim that Eq. (2) is an 'exact representation' is an unverified assertion from the authors' prior work, making the central numerical result depend on a self-citation that is not independently supported within this paper. If a different OAM definition were adopted, the computed itinerant OAM (and hence the claimed dominance) could differ, so the conclusion reduces to accepting this self-cited operator.

full rationale

The paper does contain a real, self-contained linear-response calculation: the spin and orbital susceptibilities are computed with the Kubo-Bastin formula using parameters inherited from prior DFT-based modeling, and the three-orders-of-magnitude ratio between the itinerant OAM response and the spin response is not a fitted parameter. If that ratio were the only claim, the circularity score would be near zero. However, two load-bearing choices make part of the argument circular. First, the minimal model is intentionally restricted to py and dyz orbitals, for which the atom-centered Lz matrix elements vanish identically; the paper explicitly states that this 'implies' that itinerant OAM dominates the charge-to-orbital conversion. That dominance is therefore a consequence of the basis truncation, not a discovered property, so the 'itinerant OAM is the dominant angular momentum' framing in the abstract and conclusion is partly definitional. Second, the quantitative OAM operator of Eq. (2) is imported from the authors' own Ref. 51, and the paper acknowledges competing definitions without benchmarking against them; the headline factor of 10^3 is thus only as secure as that self-citation. The heterostructure attribution—that itinerant OAM generated in the TMD transfers across the interface and produces the FM spin density—is an inference from magnitude comparisons and is not itself a circular reduction, although it is also not a fully established causal mechanism. Overall, the central numerical ratio retains independent content, so this is not a pure tautology or a fit disguised as a prediction; the circularity is partial and concentrated in the basis-imposed 'itinerant dominance' and the self-cited operator definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on a specific OAM operator definition from the authors' prior work, a minimal model that sets atomic OAM to zero, and a ferromagnet model chosen to have no intrinsic responses. The parameters are fitted to DFT in earlier work and the supplement is not included.

free parameters (3)
  • MoTe2 tight-binding parameters (Delta, m_p, m_d, delta, Lambda, beta) = From Ref. 60 (DFT fit); values not printed in main text
    The quantitative ratio of OAM to spin susceptibility and the band alignment near Q depend on these fitted values.
  • Inversion symmetry breaking parameter eta = 5.4 meV (weak), 108 meV (strong)
    Chosen to represent weak and strong TMD/FM hybridization; responses scale with eta, so the reported enhancement is controlled by this hand-tuned parameter.
  • FM Slater-Koster parameters and exchange splitting = Not specified; modified to maximize hybridization
    The heterostructure results depend on these choices, and no independent justification is given for the specific values.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Linear response in the static limit (Kubo-Bastin formula) correctly captures current-induced spin and orbital densities.
    Eq. (1) is invoked without derivation; it is a standard formalism.
  • domain assumption The real-space itinerant OAM operator in Eq. (2), from Ref. 51, is the correct representation of orbital angular momentum in periodic systems.
    Alternative definitions exist in Refs. 56-58, and no benchmark against them is provided.
  • domain assumption The minimal model of Eq. (3) with only py and dyz orbitals describes the low-energy physics of 1Td-MoTe2.
    This choice makes atom-centered OAM zero by construction, biasing the conclusion that itinerant OAM dominates.
  • domain assumption A square-lattice p-orbital ferromagnet with exchange splitting and no s orbitals has negligible intrinsic spin and orbital responses.
    This is chosen so that any induced density in the FM is attributed to the TMD; the absence of s orbitals prevents certain hybridizations.
  • ad hoc to paper OAM generated in the TMD transfers across the interface and converts into spin density in the FM.
    This causal step is inferred from correlated magnitudes, not derived from a conversion Hamiltonian or a scattering calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin Polarization driven by Itinerant Orbital Angular Momentum in van der Waals Heterostructures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T7MYX7ZB

@misc{pith2026250712587,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin Polarization driven by Itinerant Orbital Angular Momentum in van der Waals Heterostructures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T7MYX7ZB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12587}
}
abstract

We report on the possibility of manipulating magnetic materials by using itinerant orbital angular momentum to produce out-of-plane spin polarization in van der Waals heterostructures. Employing a real-space formulation of the OAM operator within linear response theory, we demonstrate that in low-symmetry transition-metal dichalcogenide (TMD) monolayers, such as 1$T{}_d$-MoTe2, the current-induced itinerant OAM exceeds the spin response by three orders of magnitude. When TMDs are coupled with ferromagnets with negligible intrinsic orbital responses, the itinerant OAM generated by the orbital Rashba-Edelstein effect transfers across the interface, generating spin densities capable of inducing magnetization dynamics inside the ferromagnet. Our findings highlight the previously overlooked role of itinerant OAM in the generation of out-of-plane spin densities, which serves as an emerging mechanism for efficient electrical control of magnetization in low-power, ultracompact storage devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12587 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic representation of the local and itiner [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a), (e) Band structure of the MoTe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Anatomy of the modern theory of orbital magnetism from first-principles: term-by-term analysis in the gauge-covariant formalism

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-03 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    Gauge-covariant term-by-term analysis shows atom-centered approximation works for localized d-metals but fails for delocalized sp-metals and TMDs, where Berry-phase hybridizations enhance orbital moments far beyond at...

  2. Orbital Hall effect in spin-3/2 hole-doped semiconductors and its implications for orbitronics

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Holes in p-type Ge show an orbital Hall conductivity roughly 6000 times its spin Hall conductivity, positioning Ge as a strong orbitronic material.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    \ Choi , author D

    author author Y.-G. \ Choi , author D. Jo , author K.-H. \ Ko , author D. Go , author K.-H. \ Kim , author H. G. \ Park , author C. Kim , author B.-C. \ Min , author G.-M. \ Choi , \ and\ author H.-W. \ Lee ,\ @noop journal journal Nature \ volume 619 ,\ pages 52 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Lyalin , author S

    author author I. Lyalin , author S. Alikhah , author M. Berritta , author P. M. \ Oppeneer , \ and\ author R. K. \ Kawakami ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.156702 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 131 ,\ pages 156702 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.156702

  3. [3]

    author author B. A. \ Bernevig , author T. L. \ Hughes , \ and\ author S.-C. \ Zhang ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.066601 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 95 ,\ pages 066601 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.066601 2005

  4. [4]

    Kontani , author T

    author author H. Kontani , author T. Tanaka , author D. S. \ Hirashima , author K. Yamada , \ and\ author J. Inoue ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.096601 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 100 ,\ pages 096601 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.096601 2008

  5. [5]

    Tanaka , author H

    author author T. Tanaka , author H. Kontani , author M. Naito , author T. Naito , author D. S. \ Hirashima , author K. Yamada , \ and\ author J. Inoue ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.77.165117 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 77 ,\ pages 165117 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.77.165117

  6. [6]

    Go , author D

    author author D. Go , author D. Jo , author H.-W. \ Lee , author M. Kläui , \ and\ author Y. Mokrousov ,\ 10.1209/0295-5075/ac2653 journal journal EPL (Europhysics Letters) \ volume 135 ,\ pages 37001 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1209/0295-5075/ac2653 2021

  7. [7]

    Wang , author Z

    author author P. Wang , author Z. Feng , author Y. Yang , author D. Zhang , author Q. Liu , author Z. Xu , author Z. Jia , author Y. Wu , author G. Yu , author X. Xu , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal npj Quantum Materials \ volume 8 ,\ pages 28 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Go , author T

    author author D. Go , author T. S. \ Seifert , author T. Kampfrath , author K. Ando , author H.-W. \ Lee , \ and\ author Y. Mokrousov ,\ @noop journal arXiv:2407.00517 \ NoStop

    arXiv

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Kashiki , author H

    journal author author H. Kashiki , author H. Hayashi , author D. Go , author Y. Mokrousov , \ and\ author K. Ando ,\ @noop journal arXiv:2504.05139 \ NoStop

  2. [10]

    El Hamdi , author J.-Y

    journal author author A. El Hamdi , author J.-Y. \ Chauleau , author M. Boselli , author C. Thibault , author C. Gorini , author A. Smogunov , author C. Barreteau , author S. Gariglio , author J.-M. \ Triscone , \ and\ author M. Viret ,\ @noop journal journal Nature Physics \ ...

    2023

  3. [11]

    author author T. S. \ Seifert , author D. Go , author H. Hayashi , author R. Rouzegar , author F. Freimuth , author K. Ando , author Y. Mokrousov , \ and\ author T. Kampfrath ,\ 10.1038/s41565-023-01470-8 journal journal Nature Nanotechnology \ volume 18 ,\ pages 1132 ( year 2...

    doi

  4. [12]

    Santos , author J

    author author E. Santos , author J. Abr\ ao , author D. Go , author L. de Assis , author Y. Mokrousov , author J. Mendes , \ and\ author A. Azevedo ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.19.014069 journal journal Phys. Rev. Appl. \ volume 19 ,\ pages 014069 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    doi

  5. [13]

    Santos , author J

    author author E. Santos , author J. Abr \ a o , author A. Vieira , author J. Mendes , author R. Rodr \' guez-Su \'a rez , \ and\ author A. Azevedo ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 109 ,\ pages 014420 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  6. [14]

    Abr \ a o , author E

    author author J. Abr \ a o , author E. Santos , author J. Costa , author J. Santos , author J. Mendes , \ and\ author A. Azevedo ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 134 ,\ pages 026702 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025

  7. [15]

    Go \ and\ author H.-W

    author author D. Go \ and\ author H.-W. \ Lee ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review research \ volume 2 ,\ pages 013177 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  8. [16]

    Ding , author A

    author author S. Ding , author A. Ross , author D. Go , author L. Baldrati , author Z. Ren , author F. Freimuth , author S. Becker , author F. Kammerbauer , author J. Yang , author G. Jakob , author Y. Mokrousov , \ and\ author M. Kl\"aui ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.177201 jour...

    doi

  9. [17]

    Go , author F

    author author D. Go , author F. Freimuth , author J.-P. \ Hanke , author F. Xue , author O. Gomonay , author K.-J. \ Lee , author S. Bl\"ugel , author P. M. \ Haney , author H.-W. \ Lee , \ and\ author Y. Mokrousov ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.033401 journal journal Phys. Rev....

    doi

  10. [18]

    Lee , author D

    author author D. Lee , author D. Go , author H.-J. \ Park , author W. Jeong , author H.-W. \ Ko , author D. Yun , author D. Jo , author S. Lee , author G. Go , author J. H. \ Oh , author K.-J. \ Kim , author B.-G. \ Park , author B.-C. \ Min , author H. C. \ Koo , author H.-W....

    doi

  11. [19]

    Fukunaga , author S

    author author R. Fukunaga , author S. Haku , author H. Hayashi , \ and\ author K. Ando ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Research \ volume 5 ,\ pages 023054 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  12. [20]

    Gupta , author C

    author author R. Gupta , author C. Bouard , author F. Kammerbauer , author J. O. \ Ledesma-Martin , author A. Bose , author I. Kononenko , author S. Martin , author P. Us \'e , author G. Jakob , author M. Drouard , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nature Communications \ volume...

    2025

  13. [21]

    Matsumoto , author R

    author author R. Matsumoto , author R. Ohshima , author Y. Ando , author D. Go , author Y. Mokrousov , \ and\ author M. Shiraishi ,\ @noop journal arXiv:2501.14237 \ NoStop

  14. [22]

    journal author author L. M. \ Canonico , author T. P. \ Cysne , author A. Molina-Sanchez , author R. B. \ Muniz , \ and\ author T. G. \ Rappoport ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.101.161409 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 101 ,\ pages 161409 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    doi

  15. [23]

    author author T. P. \ Cysne , author M. Costa , author L. M. \ Canonico , author M. B. \ Nardelli , author R. B. \ Muniz , \ and\ author T. G. \ Rappoport ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.056601 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 126 ,\ pages 056601 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    doi

  16. [24]

    Bhowal \ and\ author S

    author author S. Bhowal \ and\ author S. Satpathy ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.102.035409 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 102 ,\ pages 035409 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    Costa , author B

    author author M. Costa , author B. Focassio , author L. M. \ Canonico , author T. P. \ Cysne , author G. R. \ Schleder , author R. B. \ Muniz , author A. Fazzio , \ and\ author T. G. \ Rappoport ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.116204 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 130 ,\...

    doi

  18. [26]

    author author T. P. \ Cysne , author L. M. \ Canonico , author M. Costa , author R. Muniz , \ and\ author T. G. \ Rappoport ,\ @noop journal arXiv:2502.12339 \ NoStop

  19. [27]

    journal author author L. M. \ Canonico , author J. H. \ Garc \' a , \ and\ author S. Roche ,\ @noop journal arXiv:2307.14673 \ NoStop

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    \ Hanke , author F

    journal author author J.-P. \ Hanke , author F. Freimuth , author A. K. \ Nandy , author H. Zhang , author S. Bl\"ugel , \ and\ author Y. Mokrousov ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.121114 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 94 ,\ pages 121114 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    doi

  21. [29]

    Bhowal \ and\ author G

    author author S. Bhowal \ and\ author G. Vignale ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.103.195309 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 103 ,\ pages 195309 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Salvador-S\'anchez , author L

    author author J. Salvador-S\'anchez , author L. M. \ Canonico , author A. P\'erez-Rodr\' guez , author T. P. \ Cysne , author Y. Baba , author V. Cleric\`o , author M. Vila , author D. Vaquero , author J. A. \ Delgado-Notario , author J. M. \ Caridad , author K. Watanabe , aut...

    doi

  23. [31]

    author author B. T. \ Schaefer \ and\ author K. C. \ Nowack ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.103.224426 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 103 ,\ pages 224426 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    author author T. P. \ Cysne , author W. J. M. \ Kort-Kamp , \ and\ author T. G. \ Rappoport ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.023271 journal journal Phys. Rev. Res. \ volume 6 ,\ pages 023271 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    \ He , author D

    author author W.-Y. \ He , author D. Goldhaber-Gordon , \ and\ author K. T. \ Law ,\ 10.1038/s41467-020-15473-9 journal journal Nature Communications \ volume 11 ,\ pages 1650 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    Serlin , author C

    author author M. Serlin , author C. Tschirhart , author H. Polshyn , author Y. Zhang , author J. Zhu , author K. Watanabe , author T. Taniguchi , author L. Balents , \ and\ author A. Young ,\ 10.1126/science.aay5533 journal journal Science \ volume 367 ,\ pages 900 ( year 2020...

    doi

  27. [35]

    Sodemann \ and\ author L

    author author I. Sodemann \ and\ author L. Fu ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review letters \ volume 115 ,\ pages 216806 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  28. [36]

    \ Shi \ and\ author J

    author author L.-k. \ Shi \ and\ author J. C. \ Song ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 99 ,\ pages 035403 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  29. [37]

    \ Ye , author P.-F

    author author X.-G. \ Ye , author P.-F. \ Zhu , author W.-Z. \ Xu , author T.-Y. \ Zhao , \ and\ author Z.-M. \ Liao ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 110 ,\ pages L201407 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  30. [38]

    author author D. G. \ Ovalle , author A. Pezo , \ and\ author A. Manchon ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 110 ,\ pages 094439 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  31. [39]

    Li , author X.-Y

    author author D. Li , author X.-Y. \ Liu , author Z.-C. \ Pan , author A.-Q. \ Wang , author J. Zhang , author P. Yu , \ and\ author Z.-M. \ Liao ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 110 ,\ pages 035423 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  32. [40]

    \ Wang , author D

    author author A.-Q. \ Wang , author D. Li , author T.-Y. \ Zhao , author X.-Y. \ Liu , author J. Zhang , author X. Liao , author Q. Yin , author Z.-C. \ Pan , author P. Yu , \ and\ author Z.-M. \ Liao ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 110 ,\ pages 155434 ( ye...

    2024

  33. [41]

    MacNeill , author G

    author author D. MacNeill , author G. Stiehl , author M. Guimaraes , author R. Buhrman , author J. Park , \ and\ author D. Ralph ,\ @noop journal journal Nature Physics \ volume 13 ,\ pages 300 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  34. [42]

    \ Kao , author R

    author author I.-H. \ Kao , author R. Muzzio , author H. Zhang , author M. Zhu , author J. Gobbo , author S. Yuan , author D. Weber , author R. Rao , author J. Li , author J. H. \ Edgar , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nature materials \ volume 21 ,\ pages 1029 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022

  35. [43]

    Zhang , author H

    author author Y. Zhang , author H. Xu , author K. Jia , author G. Lan , author Z. Huang , author B. He , author C. He , author Q. Shao , author Y. Wang , author M. Zhao , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Science Advances \ volume 9 ,\ pages eadg9819 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  36. [44]

    Liu , author G

    author author Y. Liu , author G. Shi , author D. Kumar , author T. Kim , author S. Shi , author D. Yang , author J. Zhang , author C. Zhang , author F. Wang , author S. Yang , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nature Electronics \ volume 6 ,\ pages 732 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  37. [45]

    Wei , author X

    author author L. Wei , author X. Yin , author P. Liu , author P. Zhang , author W. Niu , author P. Liu , author J. Yang , author J. Peng , author F. Huang , author R. Liu , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 123 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  38. [46]

    author author S. N. \ Kajale , author T. Nguyen , author N. T. \ Hung , author M. Li , \ and\ author D. Sarkar ,\ @noop journal journal Science advances \ volume 10 ,\ pages eadk8669 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  39. [47]

    Pu , author G

    author author Y. Pu , author G. Shi , author Q. Yang , author D. Yang , author F. Wang , author C. Zhang , \ and\ author H. Yang ,\ @noop journal journal Advanced Functional Materials \ volume 34 ,\ pages 2400143 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  40. [48]

    Wang , author G

    author author F. Wang , author G. Shi , author K.-W. \ Kim , author H.-J. \ Park , author J. G. \ Jang , author H. R. \ Tan , author M. Lin , author Y. Liu , author T. Kim , author D. Yang , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nature materials \ volume 23 ,\ pages 768 ( year 2024 ...

    2024

  41. [49]

    Pandey , author B

    author author L. Pandey , author B. Zhao , author K. Tenzin , author R. Ngaloy , author V. Lamparsk \'a , author H. Bangar , author A. Ali , author M. Abdel-Hafiez , author G. Zhang , author H. Wu , et al. ,\ @noop journal arXiv:2408.13095 \ NoStop

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    \ Pan , author D

    journal author author Z.-C. \ Pan , author D. Li , author X.-G. \ Ye , author Z. Chen , author Z.-H. \ Chen , author A.-Q. \ Wang , author M. Tian , author G. Yao , author K. Liu , \ and\ author Z.-M. \ Liao ,\ @noop journal journal Science Bulletin \ volume 68 ,\ pages 2743 (...

    2023

  43. [51]

    author author L. M. \ Canonico , author J. H. \ Garcia , \ and\ author S. Roche ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 110 ,\ pages L140201 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  44. [52]

    Fan , author J

    author author Z. Fan , author J. H. \ Garcia , author A. W. \ Cummings , author J. E. \ Barrios-Vargas , author M. Panhans , author A. Harju , author F. Ortmann , \ and\ author S. Roche ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2020.12.001 journal journal Physics Reports \ volume 9...

    doi

  45. [53]

    Bastin , author C

    author author A. Bastin , author C. Lewiner , author O. Betbeder-Matibet , \ and\ author P. Nozieres ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids \ volume 32 ,\ pages 1811 ( year 1971 ) NoStop

    1971

  46. [54]

    author author L. M. \ Canonico , author T. G. \ Rappoport , \ and\ author R. B. \ Muniz ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.196601 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 122 ,\ pages 196601 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    author author S. M. \ Jo \ a o , author M. An elkovi \' c , author L. Covaci , author T. G. \ Rappoport , author J. M. V. P. \ Lopes , \ and\ author A. Ferreira ,\ 10.1098/rsos.191809 journal journal Royal Society Open Science \ volume 7 ,\ pages 191809 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    doi

  48. [56]

    Pezo , author D

    author author A. Pezo , author D. Garc\' a Ovalle , \ and\ author A. Manchon ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.106.104414 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 106 ,\ pages 104414 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    Liu , author J

    author author H. Liu , author J. H. \ Cullen , author D. P. \ Arovas , \ and\ author D. Culcer ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 134 ,\ pages 036304 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025

  50. [58]

    author author J. H. \ Cullen , author D. P. \ Arovas , author R. Raimondi , \ and\ author D. Culcer ,\ @noop journal arXiv:2505.02911 \ NoStop

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    journal @noop \ note See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for a detailed description of the KPM, expansion of the OAM operator, spin and orbital characters of the 1T_ d TMDs, tight-binding model for the 1T_ d TMD/FM, real-space projeciton scheme of ...

  52. [60]

    Vila , author C.-H

    author author M. Vila , author C.-H. \ Hsu , author J. H. \ Garcia , author L. A. \ Ben \' tez , author X. Waintal , author S. O. \ Valenzuela , author V. M. \ Pereira , \ and\ author S. Roche ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Research \ volume 3 ,\ pages 043230 ( year ...

    2021

  53. [61]

    \ Xu , author Q

    author author S.-Y. \ Xu , author Q. Ma , author H. Shen , author V. Fatemi , author S. Wu , author T.-R. \ Chang , author G. Chang , author A. M. M. \ Valdivia , author C.-K. \ Chan , author Q. D. \ Gibson , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nature Physics \ volume 14 ,\ pages ...

    2018

  54. [62]

    Furukawa , author Y

    author author T. Furukawa , author Y. Watanabe , author N. Ogasawara , author K. Kobayashi , \ and\ author T. Itou ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.023111 journal journal Phys. Rev. Res. \ volume 3 ,\ pages 023111 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    Go , author D

    author author D. Go , author D. Jo , author C. Kim , \ and\ author H.-W. \ Lee ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.086602 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 121 ,\ pages 086602 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    Medina Due \ n as , author J

    author author J. Medina Due \ n as , author J. H. \ Garc \' a , \ and\ author S. Roche ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 132 ,\ pages 266301 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

Pith tools

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