Absence of detectable spin and orbital pumping from Ni to Nb by out-of-plane ferromagnetic resonance

Christoph Klewe; Galen T. Street; Omolara A. Bakare; Rachel E. Maizel; Sachli Abdizadeh; Satoru Emori

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Absence of detectable spin and orbital pumping from Ni to Nb by out-of-plane ferromagnetic resonance

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that Ni, when precessing next to a Nb sink, produces no detectable spin or orbital pumping, with an effective mixing conductance at least an order of magnitude smaller than at an FeV/Nb interface.

desk verdict Clean differential null result worth refereeing, but the quantitative upper bound on Ni/Nb mixing conductance is conditional on an untested diffusion-length assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.11005 v1 pith:BPMQD2FZ submitted 2025-09-13 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Omolara A. Bakare , Galen T. Street , Sachli Abdizadeh , Rachel E. Maizel , Christoph Klewe , Satoru Emori This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords spinpumpingorbitalGilbertdampingferromagneticresonancemixingconductanceNi/Nbinterfaceorbitronicsangularmomentumtransport

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 tests a theoretical prediction that Ni, when its magnetization precesses, should emit a sizable orbital angular-momentum current in addition to its spin current. The authors measure Gilbert damping in two magnetron-sputtered series, FeV/Nb and FeV-Ni/Nb, as a function of Nb thickness, using out-of-plane ferromagnetic resonance to avoid two-magnon artifacts. FeV/Nb shows a clear damping increase that saturates, consistent with spin pumping from FeV into Nb. FeV-Ni/Nb shows no resolvable change in damping as Nb thickness goes from 0 to 40 nm, even though element-resolved XMCD confirms FeV and Ni precess coherently. The authors therefore conclude that Ni injects no significant spin or orbital angular momentum into Nb, placing an upper bound on the effective mixing conductance at the Ni/Nb interface of 0.5e14 Ohm^-1 m^-2, an order of magnitude smaller than at FeV/Nb. If correct, the result implies that reports of strong orbital transport in Ni/Nb heterostructures may need to be reconsidered.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the use of out-of-plane ferromagnetic resonance linewidth as a direct measure of Gilbert damping, which is free of two-magnon scattering. The paper compares two sample series—FeV/Nb and FeV-Ni/Nb—where only the presence of the 4-nm Ni interlayer differs. Two quantitative tools carry the argument: Eq. (2), a spin-diffusion model that fits the damping-vs-Nb-thickness curve to extract the spin-mixing conductance and spin diffusion length; and Eq. (3), which converts the saturated damping enhancement into an effective mixing conductance. A supporting element is element-resolved x-ray detected FMR (XMCD-FMR), which verifies that FeV and Ni precess coherently, so Ni is truly t

What would settle it

Grow a FeV-Ni/Nb series with Nb thicknesses of 80–200 nm and measure the out-of-plane FMR damping: if the damping increases at thicknesses beyond 40 nm, the claimed absence of pumping is falsified; a flat curve out to 200 nm would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that angular-momentum pumping from Ni to Nb is undetectably small, below a damping enhancement of about 0.0001. In the FeV/Nb series, the Gilbert damping parameter rises from ~0.0026 without Nb to a saturated ~0.0032 with increasing Nb thickness, and the data are well described by a conventional spin-diffusion model giving G↑↓ = (5.8±2.1)e14 Ohm^-1 m^-2 and λ_d = 5.5±1.0 nm. In the FeV-Ni/Nb series, where a 4-nm Ni layer is exchange-coupled to FeV, the damping stays at 0.0035±0.0001 for all Nb thicknesses up to 40 nm. Because the FeV and Ni magnetizations are confirmed to precess together, Ni is an active pumping source, yet it produces no damping enhancement. Using the

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that Ni-to-Nb pumping is negligible presumes that the Nb thickness range of 0–40 nm is sufficient to absorb all the pumped angular momentum; if Nb's spin or orbital diffusion length is much longer than 40 nm, the damping would remain flat even for large interface transmission, and the order-of-magnitude upper bound would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Ni/Nb interface transmits angular momentum at least an order of magnitude less efficiently than FeV/Nb, so any observed spin-orbit torque or pumping signal in Ni/Nb should be examined for non-interfacial origins.
The result implies that orbital pumping is not a generic property of Ni but is highly sensitive to the adjacent metal and interface electronic structure.
Damping-based pumping measurements, done in the out-of-plane geometry, provide a voltage-free way to benchmark angular-momentum transfer that avoids artifacts of lateral electrical detection.
The elevated baseline damping of FeV-Ni relative to FeV suggests that FeV and Ni exchange angular momentum with each other; separating that contribution is a necessary next step for interpreting Ni-based heterostructures.

Reading between the lines

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

If Ni/Nb transmits so little angular momentum, then reported orbital-Hall and orbital-torque effects in Ni/Nb might not arise from Ni pumping; a direct extension would be to measure damping in Ni/Ti and Ni/W to see whether the absence is specific to Nb.
The paper's upper bound on G_eff assumes the Nb spin/orbital diffusion length is short enough to saturate within 40 nm. A series with thicker Nb (e.g., 100 nm) would test this assumption and either tighten or overturn the bound.
The technique could be applied to systematically vary the ferromagnetic source (Fe, Co, Ni, and their alloys) while keeping the sink fixed, providing a map of which sources actually transfer angular momentum—useful for designing orbitronic devices.
The flat damping in FeV-Ni/Nb might also be explained by an interface that blocks transmission (e.g., intermixing or oxidation at Ni/Nb); future interface characterization would separate an intrinsic weak-pumping property from a sample-structural one.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The paper is a clean differential measurement: FeV/Nb shows the expected damping rise with Nb thickness (spin pumping), while FeV-Ni/Nb is flat to ±0.0001. The XFMR check that Ni precesses coherently with FeV is a nice touch—it rules out the obvious objection that Ni isn't actually moving. For that reason the null is worth taking seriously: it directly tests the recent prediction of orbital pumping from Ni.

What's genuinely new is the specific stack and the null result. The approach itself is standard out-of-plane FMR damping-vs-thickness, but the comparison of two sources under identical conditions is clean and the data appear solid. The FeV/Nb series is fitted with a conventional spin-diffusion model yielding G and λ consistent with literature, which validates the method.

The soft spot is the quantitative upper bound. The claim that G_eff(Ni/Nb) < 0.5×10^14 Ω^-1m^-2 follows from Eq. 3, and that assumes the damping enhancement has saturated within the 0–40 nm window. That requires the angular-momentum diffusion length in Nb to be comparable to or shorter than 40 nm. They measure λ=5.5 nm in FeV/Nb, but the Nb in the Ni series is deposited on a different underlayer, and no argument is given that the diffusion length is the same there. If λ were ~100 nm, the enhancement at 40 nm would stay below the ±0.0001 scatter even with arbitrarily large interface mixing conductance, so the data would be consistent with strong Ni→Nb pumping. This doesn't kill the qualitative result—the flat curve is still a fact—but it does mean the 'order of magnitude smaller' mixing conductance is conditional, not measured.

A related minor issue: no per-point error bars are shown in Fig. 3(d), only the overall scatter. That scatter is quoted as the detection limit, but if individual α values have larger uncertainties, the bound weakens further. They say data are available upon request; that helps.

Overall, this is a solid experimental contribution that deserves a serious referee. The main revision should be to soften the quantitative claim or add a careful discussion of the diffusion-length sensitivity. If the authors can show λ in Nb on Ni is comparable to that on FeV—e.g., by including a longer-thickness sample or a transport measurement—the bound becomes solid. As it stands, the paper is acceptable with revision.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports out-of-plane FMR measurements on two heterostructure series, FeV/Nb and FeV-Ni/Nb, as a function of Nb thickness. In FeV/Nb, the Gilbert damping increases and saturates with t_Nb, consistent with spin pumping into Nb; a diffusion-model fit yields G↑↓≈5.8×10^14 Ω^-1 m^-2 and λ_d≈5.5 nm. In FeV-Ni/Nb, where a 4-nm Ni layer is inserted between FeV and Nb, the damping is flat within ±0.0001 across t_Nb=0–40 nm. The authors interpret this as the absence of detectable spin or orbital pumping from Ni to Nb, and use the scatter to place an upper bound G_eff<0.5×10^14 Ω^-1 m^-2 at the Ni/Nb interface. Dynamic XMCD is used to verify that the FeV and Ni magnetizations precess coherently.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, this is a useful null result that constrains theories of orbital pumping and challenges reports of strong orbitronic effects in Ni/Nb heterostructures. The study has clear strengths: out-of-plane FMR geometry avoids two-magnon scattering; the FeV/Nb series serves as a positive control and yields literature-comparable spin-mixing conductance and diffusion length; and the dynamic XMCD measurement directly supports the assumption of coherent FeV-Ni dynamics. The central quantitative claim, however, depends on an unverified assumption about the spin/orbital diffusion length in Nb grown on the Ni underlayer. That assumption is load-bearing for the order-of-magnitude upper bound and should be addressed before the result is fully established.

major comments (2)

[Eq. (3) and the discussion after Fig. 3(d)] The conversion of the flat α(t_Nb) into an upper bound G_eff<0.5×10^14 Ω^-1 m^-2 uses Eq. (3), which is the saturated-limit expression. No saturation is observed in FeV-Ni/Nb, and λ_d for Nb adjacent to Ni is not measured. If λ_d were much larger than 40 nm, the damping increase at t_Nb=40 nm would remain below the ±0.0001 scatter even for very large G↑↓. For example, taking λ_d=100 nm and G↑↓→∞ in Eq. (2) gives Δα≈2×10^-5, far below the detection threshold. The stated order-of-magnitude bound therefore holds only if λ_d in Nb on Ni is ≲40 nm. The manuscript should explicitly justify this condition or extend the thickness range to verify saturation.
[FeV/Nb positive-control fit, Eq. (2)] The FeV/Nb series yields λ_d=5.5±1.0 nm, but this characterizes Nb grown on FeV. In FeV-Ni/Nb, the Nb layer is deposited on 4-nm Ni, and no evidence is provided that the angular-momentum diffusion length in that Nb is the same. Differences in seed layer, texture, or interfacial intermixing could alter λ_d. Since the null interpretation of the FeV-Ni/Nb data relies on saturation within the sampled 0–40 nm window, the transfer of λ_d from the FeV/Nb control to the FeV-Ni/Nb case needs support. A practical test would be to extend t_Nb well beyond 40 nm or to compare with a sink of independently known short diffusion length.

minor comments (5)

[Introduction, first paragraph] Typo: 'hetrostructures' should be 'heterostructures'.
[Experimental section, XMCD paragraph] Typo: 'circurlar' should be 'circular'.
[Fig. 1 caption] Missing space in 'Hypothesizedschematics'.
[Eq. (1) and surrounding text] The text defines ΔB as the half-width-at-half-maximum linewidth; it may help to restate this directly in the Eq. (1) discussion to avoid confusion with full-width conventions, especially as the slope factor h/(g μ_B) is a factor of two smaller than the FWHM convention.
[Abstract and Conclusions] The abstract says 'revealing no significant spin or orbital pumping' while the body appropriately emphasizes detectability limits. Slightly softening the abstract wording to 'no detectable' would better match the stated precision and the conditional nature of the upper bound.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the null result is a direct measurement; the upper-bound derivation uses standard external formulas and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental null result: the Gilbert damping parameter α for FeV-Ni/Nb is essentially constant (0.0035±0.0001) versus Nb thickness, whereas FeV/Nb shows a clear increase. The quantitative bound G_eff<0.5×10^14 Ω^-1m^-2 is obtained by inserting this measured scatter (Δα<0.0001) into the standard spin-pumping relation Eq. 3, which is cited to established literature (Tserkovnyak et al. and Zhu et al.), not to the authors' own prior work. No parameter is fitted to the FeV-Ni/Nb data and then presented as a prediction; the FeV/Nb fits of G_↑↓ and λ_d are a positive control validated against independent literature values. Self-citations appear only for a general statement about spin/orbital moments (Ref. 26) and for experimental methods (Refs. 38, 41, 42), and none is load-bearing: the Ni spin decay length is supported jointly by an independent reference (Ref. 39), and the coupling verification is original XFMR data. The assumption that the Nb diffusion length is short enough for saturation within 0–40 nm affects the validity of the upper bound but is not a circular reduction—it is an external physical condition that could fail without making the equation equivalent to its input. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and non-circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central negative claim rests on standard spin-pumping phenomenology and on three experimental assumptions: coherent FeV/Ni precession, full decay of FeV spin current within Ni, and a short enough diffusion length in Nb that the sampled thickness window would reveal pumping. The last assumption is the most fragile and is not explicitly justified.

free parameters (3)

G_updown (spin-mixing conductance) = 5.8 +/- 2.1 x 10^14 Ohm^-1 m^-2
Fitted to FeV/Nb damping versus Nb thickness using Eq. 2; used only as positive-control validation, not in the negative Ni/Nb result.
lambda_d (Nb spin diffusion length) = 5.5 +/- 1.0 nm
Second free parameter in the Eq. 2 fit to FeV/Nb data; consistent with prior reports.
g-factor = 2.1
Derived from frequency dependence of resonance field (Supplementary); converts FMR linewidth slope to Gilbert damping in Eq. 1.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Gilbert damping enhancement is a valid measure of spin/orbital pumping into an adjacent nonmagnetic sink.
The paper interprets the FeV/Nb damping increase and the absence of increase in FeV-Ni/Nb through Eqs. 2 and 3, which assume the pumped angular momentum that relaxes in the sink appears as added damping.
domain assumption FeV and Ni magnetizations precess coherently in the out-of-plane FMR geometry because exchange coupling is isotropic.
XFMR verifies in-plane coherent precession; the paper extrapolates to out-of-plane (Section 'Verification of the coupling'). If coupling were not rigid out of plane, Ni's precession amplitude could be reduced and pumping underestimated.
domain assumption Spin current pumped from FeV decays within the 4 nm Ni layer, so the FeV-Ni/Nb damping is sensitive only to the Ni/Nb interface.
Assumes Ni spin diffusion length of 2 to 3 nm (Refs. 38, 39); if this length were longer, FeV spin current could reach Nb and complicate the interpretation.
domain assumption The angular momentum diffusion length in Nb is short enough that any appreciable pumping would show a detectable damping increase within the 0 to 40 nm thickness range.
This is the main unstated premise behind using the flat damping curve to set an upper bound on effective mixing conductance; if the diffusion length in Nb were much longer than 40 nm, the damping slope would be undetectably small even for a large interface conductance.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Absence of detectable spin and orbital pumping from Ni to Nb by out-of-plane ferromagnetic resonance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BPMQD2FZ

@misc{pith2026250911005,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Absence of detectable spin and orbital pumping from Ni to Nb by out-of-plane ferromagnetic resonance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BPMQD2FZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.11005}
}

read the original abstract

Excited ferromagnets can pump spin angular momentum, along with possibly orbital angular momentum. Among elemental ferromagnets, Ni has been proposed to exhibit substantial orbital pumping relative to spin pumping. Here, we search for a signature of orbital pumping by Ni, specifically by comparing out-of-plane ferromagnetic resonance in heterostructures without Ni (FeV/Nb) and with Ni (FeV-Ni/Nb). The FeV/Nb series shows a clear increase in Gilbert damping with the Nb sink thickness, attributed to spin pumping from FeV to Nb. Surprisingly, the FeV-Ni/Nb series exhibits no such damping increase, revealing no significant spin or orbital pumping from Ni to Nb. Our results offer a fresh perspective on angular-momentum transfer in Ni-based heterostructures, suggesting that the interpretation of some strong orbitronic effects may require further consideration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.11005 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (a,b) Half-width-at-half-maximum FMR linewidth ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

[1]

Brataas , author A

author author A. Brataas , author A. D. \ Kent , \ and\ author H. Ohno ,\ 10.1038/nmat3311 journal journal Nature Materials \ volume 11 ,\ pages 372 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1038/nmat3311 2012
[2]

Manchon , author J

author author A. Manchon , author J. Z Z elezn\'y , author I. M. \ Miron , author T. Jungwirth , author J. Sinova , author A. Thiaville , author K. Garello , \ and\ author P. Gambardella ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.91.035004 journal journal Review of Modern Physics \ volume 91 ,\ pages 035004 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

doi:10.1103/revmodphys.91.035004 2019
[3]

Go , author D

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

doi:10.1209/0295-5075/ac2653 2021
[4]

Wang , author F

author author P. Wang , author F. Chen , author Y. Yang , author S. Hu , author Y. Li , author W. Wang , author D. Zhang , \ and\ author Y. Jiang ,\ 10.1002/aelm.202400554 journal journal Advanced Electronic Materials \ ,\ pages 2400554 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

doi:10.1002/aelm.202400554 2024
[5]

Burgos Atencia , author A

author author R. Burgos Atencia , author A. Agarwal , \ and\ author D. Culcer ,\ 10.1080/23746149.2024.2371972 journal journal Advances in Physics: X \ volume 9 ,\ pages 2371972 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

arXiv 2024
[6]

Dutta \ and\ author A

author author S. Dutta \ and\ author A. A. \ Tulapurkar ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.106.184406 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 106 ,\ pages 184406 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.106.184406 2022
[7]

Bose , author F

author author A. Bose , author F. Kammerbauer , author R. Gupta , author D. Go , author Y. Mokrousov , author G. Jakob , \ and\ author M. Kl \"a ui ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.107.134423 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 107 ,\ pages 134423 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.107.134423 2023
[8]

Liu , author B

author author F. Liu , author B. Liang , author J. Xu , author C. Jia , \ and\ author C. Jiang ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.107.054404 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 107 ,\ pages 054404 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.107.054404 2023

Show all 56 references

[9]

Hayashi , author D

author author H. Hayashi , author D. Jo , author D. Go , author T. Gao , author S. Haku , author Y. Mokrousov , author H.-W. \ Lee , \ and\ author K. Ando ,\ 10.1038/s42005-023-01139-7 journal journal Communications Physics \ volume 6 ,\ pages 32 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

2023 doi
[10]

\ 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 ,\ 10.1038/s41586-023-06101-9 journal journal Nature \ volume 619 ,\ p...

2023 doi
[11]

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 , et al. ,\ 10.1038/s41467-021-26650-9 journal journal Nature Communications \ volume 12 ,\ pages 6...

2021 doi
[12]

Sala \ and\ author P

author author G. Sala \ and\ author P. Gambardella ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.033037 journal journal Physical Review Research \ volume 4 ,\ pages 033037 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

2022 doi
[13]

Han , author H.-W

author author S. Han , author H.-W. \ Ko , author J. H. \ Oh , author H.-W. \ Lee , author K.-J. \ Lee , \ and\ author K.-W. \ Kim ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.036305 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 134 ,\ pages 036305 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

2025 doi
[14]

Davidson , author V

author author A. Davidson , author V. P. \ Amin , author W. S. \ Aljuaid , author P. M. \ Haney , \ and\ author X. Fan ,\ 10.1016/j.physleta.2019.126228 journal journal Physics Letters A \ volume 384 ,\ pages 126228 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

2019
[15]

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 \"u gel , author P. M. \ Haney , author H.-W. \ Lee , \ and\ author Y. Mokrousov ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.033401 journal journal Physical...

2020 doi
[16]

\ Kim , author B.-G

author author K.-W. \ Kim , author B.-G. \ Park , \ and\ author K.-J. \ Lee ,\ 10.1038/s44287-024-00010-0 journal journal npj Spintronics \ volume 2 ,\ pages 8 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024 doi
[17]

Go , author K

author author D. Go , author K. Ando , author A. Pezo , author S. Bl \"u gel , author A. Manchon , \ and\ author Y. Mokrousov ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.111.L140409 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 111 ,\ pages L140409 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

2025 doi
[18]

Pezo , author D

author author A. Pezo , author D. Go , author Y. Mokrousov , author H. Jaffr \`e s , \ and\ author A. Manchon ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.111.134424 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 111 ,\ pages 134424 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

2025 doi
[19]

Tserkovnyak , author A

author author Y. Tserkovnyak , author A. Brataas , author G. E. \ Bauer , \ and\ author B. I. \ Halperin ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.77.1375 journal journal Reviews of Modern Physics \ volume 77 ,\ pages 1375 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

2005 doi
[20]

author author C. T. \ Boone , author H. T. \ Nembach , author J. M. \ Shaw , \ and\ author T. J. \ Silva ,\ 10.1063/1.4801799 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 113 ,\ pages 153906 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

2013 doi
[21]

author author C. T. \ Boone , author J. M. \ Shaw , author H. T. \ Nembach , \ and\ author T. J. \ Silva ,\ 10.1063/1.4922581 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 117 ,\ pages 223910 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

2015 doi
[22]

Santos , author J

author author E. Santos , author J. Abr \ a o , author D. Go , author L. De Assis , author Y. Mokrousov , author J. Mendes , \ and\ author A. Azevedo ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.19.014069 journal journal Physical Review Applied \ volume 19 ,\ pages 014069 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

2023 doi
[23]

Ding , author H

author author S. Ding , author H. Wang , author W. Legrand , author P. No \"e l , \ and\ author P. Gambardella ,\ 10.1021/acs.nanolett.4c02613 journal journal Nano Letters \ volume 24 ,\ pages 10251 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024 doi
[24]

Hayashi , author D

author author H. Hayashi , author D. Go , author S. Haku , author Y. Mokrousov , \ and\ author K. Ando ,\ 10.1038/s41928-024-01193-1 journal journal Nature Electronics \ volume 7 ,\ pages 646 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024 doi
[25]

Wang , author M.-G

author author H. Wang , author M.-G. \ Kang , author D. Petrosyan , author S. Ding , author R. Schlitz , author L. J. \ Riddiford , author W. Legrand , \ and\ author P. Gambardella ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.126701 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 134 ,\ pages ...

2025 doi
[26]

Emori , author R

author author S. Emori , author R. E. \ Maizel , author G. T. \ Street , author J. L. \ Jones , author D. A. \ Arena , author P. Shafer , \ and\ author C. Klewe ,\ 10.1063/5.0198326 journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 124 ,\ pages 122404 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024 doi
[27]

author author P. M. \ Haney , author H.-W. \ Lee , author K.-J. \ Lee , author A. Manchon , \ and\ author M. D. \ Stiles ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.174411 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 87 ,\ pages 174411 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

2013 doi
[28]

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 Physical Review Letters \ volume 131 ,\ pages 156702 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

2023 doi
[29]

author author K. D. \ Belashchenko , author G. G. \ Baez Flores , author W. Fang , author A. A. \ Kovalev , author M. van Schilfgaarde , author P. M. \ Haney , \ and\ author M. D. \ Stiles ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.108.144433 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 108 ,\ pages 1...

2023 doi
[30]

Rang \ and\ author P

author author M. Rang \ and\ author P. J. \ Kelly ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.109.214427 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 109 ,\ pages 214427 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024 doi
[31]

Urazhdin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.108.L180404 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 108 ,\ pages L180404 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

author author S. Urazhdin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.108.L180404 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 108 ,\ pages L180404 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

2023 doi
[32]

Ning , author A

author author X. Ning , author A. Pezo , author K.-W. \ Kim , author W. Zhao , author K.-J. \ Lee , \ and\ author A. Manchon ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.026303 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 134 ,\ pages 026303 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

2025 doi
[33]

author author D. A. \ Smith , author A. Rai , author Y. Lim , author T. Q. \ Hartnett , author A. Sapkota , author A. Srivastava , author C. Mewes , author Z. Jiang , author M. Clavel , author M. K. \ Hudait , et al. ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.14.034042 journal journal Physical...

2020 doi
[34]

Arora , author E

author author M. Arora , author E. K. \ Delczeg-Czirjak , author G. Riley , author T. Silva , author H. T. \ Nembach , author O. Eriksson , \ and\ author J. M. \ Shaw ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.15.054031 journal journal Physical Review Applied \ volume 15 ,\ pages 054031 ( year...

2021 doi
[35]

author author M. A. \ Schoen , author J. Lucassen , author H. T. \ Nembach , author T. Silva , author B. Koopmans , author C. H. \ Back , \ and\ author J. M. \ Shaw ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.95.134410 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 95 ,\ pages 134410 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

2017 doi
[36]

Keller , author A

author author N. Keller , author A. Bose , author N. Soya , author E. Hauth , author F. Kammerbauer , author R. Gupta , author H. Hayashi , author H. Kashiki , author G. Jakob , author S. Krishnia , et al. ,\ 10.1021/acs.nanolett.5c02641 journal journal Nano Letters \ ( year 2...

2025 doi
[37]

author author E. R. \ Edwards , author H. T. \ Nembach , \ and\ author J. M. \ Shaw ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.11.054036 journal journal Physical Review Applied \ volume 11 ,\ pages 054036 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

2019 doi
[38]

Lim , author S

author author Y. Lim , author S. Wu , author D. A. \ Smith , author C. Klewe , author P. Shafer , \ and\ author S. Emori ,\ 10.1063/5.0125866 journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 121 ,\ pages 222403 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

2022 doi
[39]

\ Ko \ and\ author G.-M

author author K.-H. \ Ko \ and\ author G.-M. \ Choi ,\ 10.1016/j.jmmm.2020.166945 journal journal Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials \ volume 510 ,\ pages 166945 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

2020
[40]

author author G. S. \ Abo , author Y.-K. \ Hong , author J. Park , author J. Lee , author W. Lee , \ and\ author B.-C. \ Choi ,\ 10.1109/TMAG.2013.2258028 journal journal IEEE Transactions on Magnetics \ volume 49 ,\ pages 4937 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

2013
[41]

Klewe , author P

author author C. Klewe , author P. Shafer , author J. Shoup , author C. Kons , author Y. Pogoryelov , author R. Knut , author B. Gray , author H.-M. \ Jeon , author B. Howe , author O. Karis , et al. ,\ 10.1063/5.0141869 journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 122 ,\ ...

2023 doi
[42]

Klewe , author Q

author author C. Klewe , author Q. Li , author M. Yang , author A. T. \ N’Diaye , author D. M. \ Burn , author T. Hesjedal , author A. I. \ Figueroa , author C. Hwang , author J. Li , author R. J. \ Hicken , et al. ,\ 10.1080/08940886.2020.1725796 journal journal Synchrotron R...

2020
[43]

Piamonteze , author Y

author author C. Piamonteze , author Y. W. \ Windsor , author S. R. \ Avula , author E. Kirk , \ and\ author U. Staub ,\ 10.1107/s1600577520009972 journal journal Synchrotron Radiation \ volume 27 ,\ pages 1289 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

2020 doi
[44]

Hurben \ and\ author C

author author M. Hurben \ and\ author C. Patton ,\ 10.1063/1.367194 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 83 ,\ pages 4344 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

1998 doi
[45]

author author C. K. \ Mewes \ and\ author T. Mewes ,\ https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.1201/b18942/handbook-nanomagnetism-rosa-lukaszew journal journal Handbook of Nanomagnetism: Applications and Tools \ ,\ pages 71 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

2015 doi
[46]

\ Jeon , author C

author author K.-R. \ Jeon , author C. Ciccarelli , author A. J. \ Ferguson , author H. Kurebayashi , author L. F. \ Cohen , author X. Montiel , author M. Eschrig , author J. W. \ Robinson , \ and\ author M. G. \ Blamire ,\ 10.1038/s41563-018-0058-9 journal journal Nature Mate...

2018 doi
[47]

Zhu , author D

author author L. Zhu , author D. C. \ Ralph , \ and\ author R. A. \ Buhrman ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.057203 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 123 ,\ pages 057203 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

2019 doi
[48]

Zwierzycki , author Y

author author M. Zwierzycki , author Y. Tserkovnyak , author P. J. \ Kelly , author A. Brataas , \ and\ author G. E. \ Bauer ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.71.064420 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 71 ,\ pages 064420 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

2005 doi
[49]

Li , author W

author author Y. Li , author W. Cao , author V. P. \ Amin , author Z. Zhang , author J. Gibbons , author J. Sklenar , author J. Pearson , author P. M. \ Haney , author M. D. \ Stiles , author W. E. \ Bailey , author V. Novosad , author A. Hoffmann , \ and\ author W. Zhang ,\ 1...

2020 doi
[50]

Bai , author P

author author L. Bai , author P. Hyde , author Y. Gui , author C.-M. \ Hu , author V. Vlaminck , author J. Pearson , author S. Bader , \ and\ author A. Hoffmann ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.217602 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 111 ,\ pages 217602 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

2013 doi
[51]

Schultheiss , author J

author author H. Schultheiss , author J. E. \ Pearson , author S. D. \ Bader , \ and\ author A. Hoffmann ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.237204 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 109 ,\ pages 237204 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

2012 doi
[52]

Tsukahara , author Y

author author A. Tsukahara , author Y. Ando , author Y. Kitamura , author H. Emoto , author E. Shikoh , author M. P. \ Delmo , author T. Shinjo , \ and\ author M. Shiraishi ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.89.235317 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 89 ,\ pages 235317 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

2014 doi
[53]

Chen , author M

author author L. Chen , author M. Decker , author M. Kronseder , author S. Wimmer , author F. Wimmer , author M. Schreiber , author J. Repp , author T. Schulthess , author B. Koopmans , \ and\ author C. Back ,\ 10.1038/ncomms13802 journal journal Nature Communications \ volume...

2016 doi
[54]

\ Kim \ and\ author K.-J

author author K.-W. \ Kim \ and\ author K.-J. \ Lee ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.207205 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 125 ,\ pages 207205 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

2020 doi
[55]

Wang , author T

author author W. Wang , author T. Wang , author V. Amin , author Y. Lee , author S. Oh , author Y. Chen , author A. Kim , author B. Kim , author S. Oh , author D. Lee , author K. Lee , author J. Lee , author J. Hong , author J. Park , author H. Kim , author K. Lee , author H. ...

2019 doi
[56]

author author R. E. \ Maizel , author S. Wu , author P. P. \ Balakrishnan , author A. J. \ Grutter , author C. J. \ Kinane , author A. J. \ Caruana , author P. Nakarmi , author B. Nepal , author D. A. \ Smith , author Y. Lim , et al. ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.22.044052 journal...

2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Brataas , author A

author author A. Brataas , author A. D. \ Kent , \ and\ author H. Ohno ,\ 10.1038/nmat3311 journal journal Nature Materials \ volume 11 ,\ pages 372 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1038/nmat3311 2012

[2] [2]

Manchon , author J

author author A. Manchon , author J. Z Z elezn\'y , author I. M. \ Miron , author T. Jungwirth , author J. Sinova , author A. Thiaville , author K. Garello , \ and\ author P. Gambardella ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.91.035004 journal journal Review of Modern Physics \ volume 91 ,\ pages 035004 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

doi:10.1103/revmodphys.91.035004 2019

[3] [3]

Go , author D

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

doi:10.1209/0295-5075/ac2653 2021

[4] [4]

Wang , author F

author author P. Wang , author F. Chen , author Y. Yang , author S. Hu , author Y. Li , author W. Wang , author D. Zhang , \ and\ author Y. Jiang ,\ 10.1002/aelm.202400554 journal journal Advanced Electronic Materials \ ,\ pages 2400554 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

doi:10.1002/aelm.202400554 2024

[5] [5]

Burgos Atencia , author A

author author R. Burgos Atencia , author A. Agarwal , \ and\ author D. Culcer ,\ 10.1080/23746149.2024.2371972 journal journal Advances in Physics: X \ volume 9 ,\ pages 2371972 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

Dutta \ and\ author A

author author S. Dutta \ and\ author A. A. \ Tulapurkar ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.106.184406 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 106 ,\ pages 184406 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.106.184406 2022

[7] [7]

Bose , author F

author author A. Bose , author F. Kammerbauer , author R. Gupta , author D. Go , author Y. Mokrousov , author G. Jakob , \ and\ author M. Kl \"a ui ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.107.134423 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 107 ,\ pages 134423 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.107.134423 2023

[8] [8]

Liu , author B

author author F. Liu , author B. Liang , author J. Xu , author C. Jia , \ and\ author C. Jiang ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.107.054404 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 107 ,\ pages 054404 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.107.054404 2023