Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Controlled spin-to-charge conversion in noncollinear antiferromagnet-based Py/Mn$_{3}$Pt heterostructure

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · 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 Mn3Pt acts as an efficient spin sink in Py/Mn3Pt bilayers, with intrinsic Gilbert damping of 3.1e-2 and effective spin-mixing conductance of 4.8e18 m^-2, comparable to high-performance antiferromagnetic heterostructures.

desk verdict Real FMR data, but the spin-pumping interpretation collapses on the paper's own intercept—no direct charge conversion measured. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21014 v1 pith:QHYVAFFS submitted 2025-08-28 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Indraneel Sinha , Saurav Sachin , Prashant Kumar , Atul Pandey , Bijoy Kumar Kuanr , Sujit Manna This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall PACS 76.50.+g72.25.Ba75.50.Ee
keywords noncollinearantiferromagnetMn3PtspinpumpingGilbertdampingferromagneticresonancespin-mixingconductanceanomalousHalleffectspintronics
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 tries to establish that the noncollinear antiferromagnet Mn3Pt can absorb spin current as efficiently as leading antiferromagnetic materials, by measuring how much the magnetic damping of a permalloy film increases when it is placed on Mn3Pt. Broadband ferromagnetic resonance on Py/Mn3Pt bilayers shows a jump in Gilbert damping from about 9.8e-3 (bare Py) to an intrinsic value of 3.1e-2, with an effective spin-mixing conductance of 4.8e18 m^-2, numbers comparable to high-performance antiferromagnetic heterostructures. The authors combine this with structural, magnetic, and transport data showing atomically sharp interfaces and a large anomalous Hall response, arguing that Mn3Pt plays a dual role: a strong absorber of transverse spin current and a Berry-curvature-driven charge-signal source. If true, this positions noncollinear antiferromagnets as a practical alternative to heavy metals for spin generation and detection in spintronic devices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective spin-mixing conductance g_eff, the interfacial parameter governing how much spin angular momentum passes from the precessing permalloy into Mn3Pt, extracted from the slope of the Gilbert damping versus inverse permalloy thickness. The Kittel and Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equations connect the resonance field, linewidth, and frequency; what carries the argument is the frequency-linear FMR linewidth, whose linear dependence identifies Gilbert-type damping rather than inhomogeneous broadening, and whose inverse-thickness scaling isolates the interfacial spin-pumping contribution from the bulk damping of Py.

What would settle it

Grow Py/Mn3Pt bilayers with an ultrathin Cu or Al2O3 spacer of increasing thickness between the layers and measure the FMR linewidth: if the damping enhancement remains near 3.1e-2 even when the spacer blocks exchange and spin transmission, the enhancement is not interfacial spin pumping. Alternatively, a direct dc voltage measurement at ferromagnetic resonance, with the field- and current-orientation dependence expected from the magnetic inverse spin Hall effect, would confirm the claimed spin-to-charge conversion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Mn3Pt with its noncollinear (triangular) T1 spin structure acts as an efficient spin sink when interfaced with permalloy. The evidence is a strong, frequency-linear enhancement of the FMR linewidth in Py/Mn3Pt relative to bare Py; using the standard inverse-thickness analysis, the paper extracts an intrinsic Gilbert damping of about 3.1e-2 and an effective spin-mixing conductance g_eff of about 4.8e18 m^-2, comparable to values reported for other high-performance antiferromagnet-based bilayers. The paper attributes the spin absorption to three channels made possible by the noncollinear order: uncompensated interfacial spins pinned by antiferromagnetic domains, stron

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the extra magnetic damping in the bilayer comes from spin pumping into Mn3Pt, not from two-magnon scattering, magnetic proximity, or interfacial intermixing; if those other mechanisms contribute, the extracted spin-mixing conductance is not a clean quantitative measure of spin pumping.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the extracted numbers hold, Mn3Pt can act as a spin-current sink with an efficiency comparable to leading antiferromagnet-based bilayers, making it a viable heavy-metal alternative.
  • The damping of the bilayer is tunable by changing the permalloy thickness, offering a practical control knob for spintronic device design.
  • Mn3Pt appears to combine two functions in one layer: absorbing spin current and giving a Berry-curvature-driven anomalous Hall readout of the magnetic state.
  • Because the linewidth broadening is linear in frequency, the enhanced damping is broadband Gilbert-type behavior, suited to high-frequency operation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the spin-sink conclusion transfers to device geometries, Py/Mn3Pt could combine spin-current absorption and electrical readout in a single layer, eliminating the separate heavy-metal and detector layers used in conventional spin-orbit torque devices.
  • The non-monotonic dependence of g_eff on permalloy thickness, peaking near 11 nm, implies an optimal thickness for maximizing spin injection; device stacks would be tuned near that peak.
  • Orientation-dependent FMR measurements could separate the three proposed absorption channels, isolating the magnetic spin Hall effect contribution, since that contribution depends on the relative orientation of current, field, and the noncollinear order.
  • A direct dc voltage measurement at ferromagnetic resonance, with the field- and current-orientation dependence expected from the magnetic inverse spin Hall effect, would connect the paper's title claim of spin-to-charge conversion to the damping evidence.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a broadband FMR study of Py/Mn$_3$Pt(111) bilayers with Py thickness 10–16 nm on 20 nm Mn$_3$Pt on Si. The authors claim that interfacing Py with Mn$_3$Pt produces a pronounced damping enhancement, with an intrinsic damping of $\alpha_{\mathrm{int}}\approx 3.1\times10^{-2}$ and an effective spin-mixing conductance $g^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{\mathrm{eff}}\approx4.8\times10^{18}\,\mathrm{m^{-2}}$, which they interpret as efficient spin pumping into the noncollinear antiferromagnet. The manuscript also includes structural characterization (XRD, XRR, TOF-SIMS, AFM, STM) and magneto-transport measurements of the anomalous Hall effect in Mn$_3$Pt. The title and conclusion assert 'controlled spin-to-charge conversion,' although no direct electrical detection of a spin-to-charge signal is reported.

Significance. If substantiated, the claim that Mn$_3$Pt acts as an efficient spin sink with a large spin-mixing conductance would be of interest for antiferromagnetic spintronics. The growth and structural characterization are careful, and the low-damping Py reference shown in Sec. 3.3 is a useful baseline. However, the central quantitative claim is not currently supported: the damping analysis is internally inconsistent with the spin-pumping model, the control experiments needed to exclude non-spin-pumping relaxation channels are absent, and the spin-to-charge conversion advertised in the title is not measured. The paper would be significantly strengthened by additional control samples, error bars, and a direct spin-pumping voltage or inverse-spin-Hall-effect measurement.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.4, Eq. (5) and Fig. 5(e)] The spin-pumping interpretation is quantitatively inconsistent with the fit. Eq. (5) defines the thickness-dependent spin-pumping term as $(g^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{\mathrm{eff}}\gamma\hbar/4\pi M_S)t^{-1}$ and the intercept $\alpha_{\mathrm{int}}$ as the thickness-independent damping. The fit gives $\alpha_{\mathrm{int}}\approx3.1\times10^{-2}$, which is about 3.2 times the reference Py damping $\alpha_{\mathrm{eff}}\approx9.8\times10^{-3}$ reported in Sec. 3.3. This means the dominant damping enhancement is thickness-independent and cannot be attributed to spin pumping, which must scale as $1/t$. Using the reported $g^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{\mathrm{eff}}=4.8\times10^{18}\,\mathrm{m^{-2}}$ and $M_S=1089\,\mathrm{emu/cm^3}$, the spin-pumping term at $t=10\,\mathrm{nm}$ is only $\sim7\times10^{-4}$, i.e. about 3% of the observed enhancement $\sim2.1\times10^{-2}$. The extracted $g^{\uparrow
  2. [Sec. 3.4] No control experiment isolates spin pumping from other interfacial damping mechanisms. The reference Py films are grown directly on Si, not on a matched buffer or on a non-magnetic cap, so the baseline does not account for changes in interface morphology, strain, or chemical intermixing when Py is grown on Mn$_3$Pt. No spacer-layer experiment (e.g., Py/Cu/Mn$_3$Pt or Py/Al$_2$O$_3$/Mn$_3$Pt) is reported, and two-magnon scattering, magnetic proximity effects, and interfacial alloying are not excluded. The TOF-SIMS data in Sec. 3.1 show sharp profiles, but they cannot rule out these mechanisms. Consequently, the conclusion that Mn$_3$Pt is an efficient spin sink is not quantitatively established.
  3. [Title, Introduction, Conclusion] The paper claims 'controlled spin-to-charge conversion' and 'spin generation,' but no spin-to-charge conversion measurement is reported. The experiments consist of FMR damping studies on Py/Mn$_3$Pt bilayers and separate anomalous Hall effect measurements on bare Mn$_3$Pt films. There is no FMR-induced DC voltage, inverse spin Hall voltage, or spin-torque FMR measurement that would directly demonstrate conversion of a spin current into a charge signal in the heterostructure. The title and concluding claims overstate what the data show.
  4. [Sec. 3.4, Fig. 5(f) and Eq. (6)] The non-monotonic thickness dependence of $g^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is based on only four thickness points (10, 11, 14, 16 nm) with no error bars, and it is extracted using Eq. (6), which subtracts the reference Py damping $\alpha_{\mathrm{Py}}$ rather than the fitted $\alpha_{\mathrm{int}}$ from Eq. (5). These two procedures are inconsistent and yield different interpretations of the same data. The claimed 'peak' at $\sim11$ nm and the 'optimal thickness' conclusion are not robust; the scatter in a four-point dataset is sufficient to produce such a peak.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.4, Eq. (5)] The text contains a typo: 'the values of $\alpha_{in}$ and $g^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{\mathrm{eff}}$' should read $\alpha_{\mathrm{int}}$.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (3)] Please check the prefactor in the linewidth expression. The standard relation for the full-width at half-maximum linewidth is often written as $\Delta H = \Delta H_0 + (2\alpha/\gamma)f$ or with $4\pi$ depending on the definition of $\gamma$ and the linewidth convention. The present form with $2\pi\alpha\hbar/\gamma$ should be justified or defined.
  3. [Sec. 3.4, Eq. (6)] Eq. (6) would benefit from explicit definitions of $g$ and $\mu_B$ and a statement of the unit system. As written, the prefactor differs from commonly used expressions and the reader cannot easily verify the numerical value of $g^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{\mathrm{eff}}$.
  4. [Figs. 4 and 5] Error bars are not shown in the FMR fits, the Kittel fits, or the $\alpha_{\mathrm{eff}}$ vs. $t^{-1}$ and $g^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{\mathrm{eff}}$ vs. $t$ plots. Without uncertainties, the statistical significance of the extracted parameters and of the non-monotonic behavior in Fig. 5(f) cannot be assessed.
  5. [Sec. 3.3] The optimization study reports maximum $M_S$ at 300°C but the films used in the bilayers are grown at 400°C because the damping is lowest there. It would be helpful to state explicitly whether the 400°C Py on Mn$_3$Pt also shows the same $M_S$ and whether any interfacial diffusion occurs at that temperature beyond the TOF-SIMS statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: damping enhancement is measured and spin-mixing conductance is a fit, not a prediction; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: measure FMR spectra, fit linewidth vs frequency (Eq. 3) to obtain α_eff, and fit α_eff versus 1/t (Eq. 5) to extract α_int and g_eff. Each step uses an independent measurement and a standard model; the model is not defined in terms of the conclusion. The value g_eff ≈ 4.8 × 10^18 m^-2 is a slope parameter, not a quantity predicted before the fit. The per-thickness g_eff in Fig. 5(f) is an algebraic rearrangement of the same α_eff data via Eq. (6), and the 'peak' is an interpretation of scatter, not an independent prediction; re-plotting a fitted quantity does not make the argument circular. Self-citations (refs 31–33) are used only for the growth recipe and STM apparatus, not as the sole support for the spin-pumping claim. The lack of a spacer control and the mismatch between α_int ≈ 3.1 × 10^-2 and the reference Py α ≈ 9.8 × 10^-3 are serious validity concerns about attributing the enhancement to spin pumping, but they are not circularity: the damping increase itself is a measured, external observation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard spin-pumping and Kittel formalisms, with several quantities fitted from the same FMR data. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • g_eff^↑↓ = 4.8 x 10^18 m^-2
    Extracted from linear fit of α_eff vs 1/t using Eq. 5; central claimed quantity.
  • α_int = 3.1 x 10^-2
    Intercept of same fit; reported as intrinsic Gilbert damping of bilayer.
  • M_S = 1089 emu/cm^3
    From fit of M_eff vs 1/t using Eq. 4.
  • K_S = 0.42 erg/cm^2
    Surface anisotropy constant from same fit.
  • H_K = 140 Oe
    Average uniaxial anisotropy field from Kittel fits.
  • M_eff = ~740 emu/cm^3 for reference Py
    Fitted from Kittel equation for each sample.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Enhanced Gilbert damping is solely due to spin pumping into Mn3Pt (Eq. 5/6 formalism)
    Invoked in Section 3.4; neglects two-magnon scattering, magnetic proximity, or interface roughness contributions.
  • domain assumption Mn3Pt films are in the topological T1 spin state after growth at 600°C and post-annealing
    Relied on in Section 1 and 3.1 based on previous work [31]; no direct spin structure verification in this paper.
  • domain assumption Gilbert-type damping dominates the linewidth broadening (ΔH linear in f)
    Assumed in Section 3.4; only 6-12 GHz range, no angular dependence measured.
  • standard math Standard Kittel and LLG equations apply to Py/Mn3Pt bilayer with unchanged gyromagnetic ratio
    Used throughout; reasonable but could be affected by interfacial effects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Controlled spin-to-charge conversion in noncollinear antiferromagnet-based Py/Mn$_{3}$Pt heterostructure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QHYVAFFS

@misc{pith2026250821014,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Controlled spin-to-charge conversion in noncollinear antiferromagnet-based Py/Mn$_3$Pt heterostructure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QHYVAFFS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21014}
}
abstract

Noncollinear antiferromagnets (NCAFs) have recently emerged as promising candidates for future spintronic technologies, offering ultrafast switching, negligible stray fields allowing dense packing, and robustness against external magnetic perturbations. When interfaced with ferromagnets (FMs), they can strongly influence interfacial exchange and spin-torque mechanisms that enable manipulating magnetic order and realizing functionalities beyond conventional heavy metals (HMs) based FM/HM heterostructures. Here, we perform a broadband ferromagnetic resonance (FMR) study to systematically investigate the magnetization dynamics and spin-to-charge conversion in permalloy (Py) and Mn$_3$Pt bilayers. High-quality Py films provide a well-defined FMR spectra with a low Gilbert damping parameter ( $\alpha_{\mathrm{eff}} \approx 9.8 \times 10^{-3}$). We observe a pronounced enhancement of damping with intrinsic value $\alpha_{\mathrm{int}} \approx 3.1 \times 10^{-2}$ in the Py/Mn$_3$Pt bilayer, indicating efficient spin pumping into the NCAF layer. Frequency dependent linewidth analysis shows a predominantly Gilbert type damping in the bilayers and the corresponding effective spin-mixing conductance ( $g^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{\mathrm{eff}} \approx 4.8 \times 10^{18}$m$^{-2}$) is comparable to that of other high-performance antiferromagnetic heterostructures. These results are significant for establishing NCAFs as a candidate material for spin generation and highlights the potential of Py/Mn$_3$Pt bilayers for efficient and ultrafast spintronic applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21014 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) Schematic illustration of the magnetic ground state of Mn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (a) Constant-current STM topography image (30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Magnetization and magneto-transport studies: (a) Magnetization of Mn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) Schematic shows Py/Mn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) Frequency dependence of FMR spectra obtained for Py(11 nm)/Mn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    INTRODUCTION Antiferromagnetic materials (AFs) have emerged as promising candidates for next-generation spintronics de- vices due to their ultrafast spin dynamics, robustness against external magnetic fields, and potential for low- power operations [1–4]. Their integration enables novel spin transport phenomena such as the spin Hall effect, domain wall mo...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Mn 3Pt (20 nm) films were deposited on Si via co- sputtering of Mn (99.9%) and Pt (99.999%) targets pow- ered by direct current (DC) and radio frequency (RF) sources, respectively

    EXPERIMENT AL METHODS Mn3Pt and Py(Ni 80Fe20)/Mn3Pt thin films were grown in an ultrahigh vacuum sputtering chamber (Hind High Vacuum, India) with a base pressure of 2 × 10−8 mbar. Mn 3Pt (20 nm) films were deposited on Si via co- sputtering of Mn (99.9%) and Pt (99.999%) targets pow- ered by direct current (DC) and radio frequency (RF) sources, respectiv...

    work page

  3. [3]

    RESUL TS AND DISCUSSION 3.1. Growth and structural characterization X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns of the Mn 3Pt and Py/Mn3Pt films show a strong preferential orientation along the (111) crystallographic direction (Fig. 1(b))[34]. The thicknesses of the Py(t)/Mn 3Pt bilayers, as accu- rately determined by XRR measurements indicate a fixed Mn3Pt layer th...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Chemi- cal and structural analyses down to atomic scale resolu- tion confirm atomically sharp and low-roughness inter- faces

    CONCLUSION In this work, we establish Mn 3Pt, a noncollinear an- tiferromagnet with strong Berry-curvature, as an effi- cient spin sink in Py/Mn 3Pt heterostructures. Chemi- cal and structural analyses down to atomic scale resolu- tion confirm atomically sharp and low-roughness inter- faces. While the optimized Py layers with intrinsically low damping pro...

    work page

  5. [5]

    IS and SM acknowledge partial support from the DST-funded project ’CONCEPT’ under the Na- tional Programme on Nano Science and Technology (DST/NM/QM-10/2019), Government of India

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was suppoerted by ANRF Core Re- search Grant (CRG/2023/008193), Government of In- dia. IS and SM acknowledge partial support from the DST-funded project ’CONCEPT’ under the Na- tional Programme on Nano Science and Technology (DST/NM/QM-10/2019), Government of India. We ac- knowledge the Department of Physics at IIT Delhi for XRD,...

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    W. Han, Y. Otani, and S. Maekawa, npj Quantum Ma- terials 3, 27 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Mangin, D

    S. Mangin, D. Ravelosona, J. A. Katine, M. J. Carey, B. D. Terris, and E. E. Fullerton, Nature Materials 5, 210 (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Chowdhury, K

    N. Chowdhury, K. I. A. Khan, H. Bangar, P. Gupta, R. S. Yadav, R. Agarwal, A. Kumar, and P. K. Muduli, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India Section A: Physical Sciences 93, 477 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    H. Bai, Y. Zhang, L. Han, Y. Zhou, F. Pan, and C. Song, Applied Physics Reviews 9 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Shiino, S.-H

    T. Shiino, S.-H. Oh, P. M. Haney, S.-W. Lee, G. Go, B.-G. Park, and K.-J. Lee, Physical Review Letters 117, 087203 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    M. Wu, T. Chen, T. Nomoto, Y. Tserkovnyak, H. Isshiki, Y. Nakatani, T. Higo, T. Tomita, K. Kondou, R. Arita, et al., Nature Communications 15, 4305 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Nakatsuji, N

    S. Nakatsuji, N. Kiyohara, and T. Higo, Nat. 527, 212–215 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Ikhlas, T

    M. Ikhlas, T. Tomita, T. Koretsune, M.-T. Suzuki, D. Nishio-Hamane, R. Arita, Y. Otani, and S. Nakatsuji, Nat. Phys. 13, 1085–1090 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Pandey, J

    A. Pandey, J. Deka, J. Yoon, A. Mathew, C. Koerner, R. Dreyer, J. M. Taylor, S. S. P. Parkin, and G. Wolters- dorf, ACS Nano 18, 31949 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    T. Higo, H. Man, D. B. Gopman, L. Wu, T. Koretsune, O. M. J. van ’t Erve, Y. P. Kabanov, D. Rees, Y. Li, M.- T. Suzuki, S. Patankar, M. Ikhlas, C. L. Chien, R. Arita, R. D. Shull, J. Orenstein, and S. Nakatsuji, Nature Pho- tonics 12, 73–78 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    H. Yang, Y. Sun, Y. Zhang, W.-J. Shi, S. S. Parkin, and B. Yan, New Journal of Physics 19, 015008 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Busch, B

    O. Busch, B. G¨ obel, and I. Mertig, Physical Review B 104, 184423 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    M. Wu, H. Isshiki, T. Chen, T. Higo, S. Nakatsuji, and Y. Otani, Applied Physics Letters 116 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    A. K. Nayak, J. E. Fischer, Y. Sun, B. Yan, J. Karel, A. C. Komarek, C. Shekhar, N. Kumar, W. Schnelle, J. K¨ ubler, and C. Felser, Science Advances2, e1501870 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    B. E. Zuniga-Cespedes, K. Manna, H. M. Noad, P.-Y. Yang, M. Nicklas, C. Felser, A. P. Mackenzie, and C. W. Hicks, New Journal of Physics 25, 023029 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    X. Li, J. Koo, Z. Zhu, K. Behnia, and B. Yan, Nature Communications 14, 1642 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Nagaosa, J

    N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. MacDonald, and N. P. Ong, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 1539 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Fukami, C

    S. Fukami, C. Zhang, S. DuttaGupta, A. Kurenkov, and H. Ohno, Nature Materials 15, 535 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Poelchen, J

    G. Poelchen, J. Hellwig, M. Peters, D. Y. Usachov, K. Kliemt, C. Laubschat, P. M. Echenique, E. V. Chulkov, C. Krellner, S. Parkin, et al., Nature Commu- nications 14, 5422 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    B. Pal, B. K. Hazra, B. G¨ obel, J.-C. Jeon, A. K. Pandeya, A. Chakraborty, O. Busch, A. K. Srivastava, H. Deniz, J. M. Taylor,et al., Science Advances 8, eabo5930 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    C. Cao, S. Chen, R.-C. Xiao, Z. Zhu, G. Yu, Y. Wang, X. Qiu, L. Liu, T. Zhao, D.-F. Shao, et al., Nature Com- munications 14, 5873 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    H. Bai, X. F. Zhou, H. W. Zhang, W. W. Kong, L. Y. Liao, X. Y. Feng, X. Z. Chen, Y. F. You, Y. J. Zhou, L. Han, and W. X. Zhu, Physical Review B 104, 104401 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Holanda, H

    J. Holanda, H. Saglam, V. Karakas, Z. Zang, Y. Li, R. Divan, Y. Liu, O. Ozatay, V. Novosad, J. E. Pearson, and A. Hoffmann, Physical Review Letters 124, 087204 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Zhang, W

    W. Zhang, W. Han, S.-H. Yang, Y. Sun, Y. Zhang, B. Yan, and S. S. Parkin, Science Advances 2, e1600759 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    S. N. Panda, N. Mao, N. Peshcherenko, X. Feng, Y. Zhang, A. Markou, C. Felser, and E. Lesne, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02415 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    H. Xie, X. Chen, Q. Zhang, Z. Mu, X. Zhang, B. Yan, and Y. Wu, Nature Communications 13, 5744 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    J.-Y. Yoon, Y. Takeuchi, R. Takechi, J. Han, T. Uchimura, Y. Yamane, S. Kanai, J. Ieda, H. Ohno, and S. Fukami, Nature Communications16, 1171 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    B. H. Rimmler, B. Pal, and S. S. Parkin, Nature Reviews Materials 10, 109 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Gurung, D.-F

    G. Gurung, D.-F. Shao, T. R. Paudel, and E. Y. Tsymbal, Physical Review Materials 3, 044409 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Y. Kota, H. Tsuchiura, and A. Sakuma, IEEE Transac- tions on Magnetics 44, 3131 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    Sinha, S

    I. Sinha, S. Sachin, S. Sinha, R. Roy, S. Kanungo, and S. Manna, Physical Review Materials 9, 074202 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Sinha, S

    I. Sinha, S. Sinha, S. Naskar, and S. Manna, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 37, 115001 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Sinha, P

    I. Sinha, P. Dutta, N. Firdosh, S. Sinha, N. Ganguli, and S. Manna, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Z. Liu, H. Chen, J. Wang, J. Liu, K. Wang, Z. Feng, H. Yan, X. Wang, C. Jiang, J. Coey, et al., Nature Elec- tronics 1, 172 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Kumar, R

    P. Kumar, R. Kumar, V. Sharma, M. K. Khanna, and B. K. Kuanr, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 988, 174314 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Kharmouche and O

    A. Kharmouche and O. Cherrad, Physica B: Condensed Matter 680, 415803 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    H. Chen, Q. Niu, and A. H. MacDonald, Physical Review Letters 112, 017205 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    S. Xu, B. Dai, Y. Jiang, D. Xiong, H. Cheng, L. Tai, M. Tang, Y. Sun, Y. He, B. Yang, et al., Nature Com- munications 15, 3717 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    See Supplemental Material for temperature-dependent 10 longitudinal resistivity, magnetoresistance, transverse re- sistivity

  37. [45]

    K. Dong, Y. Jiao, Z. Yuan, C. Sun, K. He, F. Jin, W. Mo, and J. Song, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Mate- rials 523, 167615 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    D¨ urrenfeld, F

    P. D¨ urrenfeld, F. Gerhard, J. Chico, R. Dumas, M. Ran- jbar, A. Bergman, L. Bergqvist, A. Delin, C. Gould, L. Molenkamp, and J. ˚Akerman, Physical Review B 92, 214424 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    M. B. Jungfleisch, A. V. Chumak, A. Kehlberger, V. Lauer, D. H. Kim, M. C. Onbasli, C. A. Ross, M. Kl¨ aui, and B. Hillebrands, Physical Review B 91, 134407 (2015)

    2015

  40. [48]

    R. Sun, Y. Li, Z. K. Xie, Y. Li, X.-T. Zhao, W. Liu, Z. D. Zhang, T. Zhu, Z.-H. Cheng, and W. He, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 497, 165971 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    J. P. Nibarger, R. Lopusnik, and T. J. Silva, Applied Physics Letters 82, 2112 (2003)

    2003

  42. [50]

    B. K. Hazra, S. N. Kaul, S. Srinath, and M. M. Raja, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 52, 325002 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    Inaba, H

    N. Inaba, H. Asanuma, S. Igarashi, S. Mori, F. Kirino, K. Koike, and H. Morita, IEEE Transactions on Magnet- ics 42, 2372 (2006)

    2006

  44. [52]

    Schulz, R

    F. Schulz, R. Lawitzki, H. G lowi´ nski, F. Lisiecki, N. Tr¨ ager, P. Ku´ swik, E. Goering, G. Sch¨ utz, and J. Gr¨ afe, Journal of Applied Physics129 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Manschot, A

    J. Manschot, A. Brataas, and G. E. W. Bauer, Applied Physics Letters 85, 3250 (2004)

    2004

  46. [54]

    M. A. Lund, A. Salimath, and K. M. Hals, Physical Re- view B 104, 174424 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Frangou, S

    L. Frangou, S. Oyarzun, S. Auffret, L. Vila, S. Gam- barelli, and V. Baltz, Physical Review Letters 116, 077203 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    S. Pal, A. Nandi, S. G. Nath, P. K. Pal, K. Sharma, S. Manna, A. Barman, and C. Mitra, Appl. Phys. Lett. 124, 112403 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    K. I. A. Khan, A. Kumar, P. Gupta, R. S. Yadav, J. ˚Akerman, and P. K. Muduli, Scientific Reports 14, 3487 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    S. Ding, H. Wang, W. Legrand, P. No¨ el, and P. Gam- bardella, Nano Letters 24, 10251 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Mosendz, J

    O. Mosendz, J. Pearson, F. Fradin, G. Bauer, S. Bader, and A. Hoffmann, Physical Review Letters 104, 046601 (2010)

    2010

  52. [60]

    Kimata, H

    M. Kimata, H. Chen, K. Kondou, S. Sugimoto, P. K. Muduli, M. Ikhlas, Y. Omori, T. Tomita, A. H. Mac- Donald, S. Nakatsuji, et al., Nature 565, 627 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Hayashi, A

    H. Hayashi, A. Musha, H. Sakimura, and K. Ando, Phys- ical Review Research 3, 013042 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    H. L. Wang, C. H. Du, Y. Pu, R. Adur, P. C. Hammel, and F. Y. Yang, Physical Review Letters 112, 197201 (2014)

    2014

  55. [63]

    Kumar, V

    P. Kumar, V. Sharma, M. K. Khanna, and B. K. Kuanr, Physics Letters A , 130722 (2025)

    2025

  56. [64]

    Sharma, V

    V. Sharma, V. Sharma, R. K. Ghosh, and B. K. Kuanr, Journal of Applied Physics 132 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.