Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Electric field controlled spin transport in a topological insulator interfaced with a ferroelectric antiferromagnet

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · 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 electric-field control of spin-charge conversion in Bi2Te3/BiFeO3 heterostructures, and argues that topological surface states, not the bulk, mediate the interfacial spin transport.

desk verdict New Bi2Te3/BFO thickness-series data, but the central surface-state claim is undercut by an internal contradiction and missing controls. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14031 v1 pith:265SOU6Q submitted 2026-07-15 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Yogesh Kumar , Pushpendra Gupta , Xinyan Li , Richa Mudgal , Ashish Omar , Ryan Chen , Mito Funatsu , Maya Ramesh
show 9 more authors
Nicholas Reiterer Yuanqi Lyu Yiping Zeng Darrell G. Schlom Alessandra Lanzara Robert J. Birgeneau James G. Analytis Ramamoorthy Ramesh Sajid Husain
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords spin-chargeconversiontopologicalinsulatorferroelectricantiferromagnetmagnonspintransportinverseEdelsteineffectelectric-fieldcontrolnonlocalweakantilocalization
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

Spin-charge conversion in the topological insulator Bi2Te3 can be switched by an electric field when the Bi2Te3 is placed on an insulating ferroelectric antiferromagnet, BiFeO3. Using a nonlocal geometry with no magnetic field, the authors find a voltage that follows the ferroelectric polarization and reverses with current polarity, a signature they attribute to magnon transport through BiFeO3 and inverse Edelstein detection at a second Bi2Te3 electrode. The decisive observation is thickness dependence: the conversion stays robust above 10 nm of Bi2Te3, then drops sharply and vanishes at 5 nm, in parallel with the loss of weak-antilocalization coherency. The paper argues this is the hybridization-induced transition of ultrathin Bi2Te3 to a trivial insulator, establishing that spin-momentum-locked surface states, not the bulk, dominate interfacial spin transport. A sympathetic reader would care because it demonstrates electric-field control of spin flow through a fully insulating magnetic barrier, a practical route to low-power, nonvolatile spintronic devices.

What carries the argument

The central object is the nonlocal spin-transport device: a current-driven Bi2Te3 wire injects a nonequilibrium spin polarization via the Edelstein effect; the polarization is carried through the insulating, antiferromagnetic BiFeO3 by magnons; a second Bi2Te3 electrode converts the arriving spin accumulation back into a voltage via the inverse Edelstein effect. The identity that carries the argument is the parallel between the thickness dependence of the conversion voltage and the coherency factor extracted from weak-antilocalization fits: both fall together as Bi2Te3 is thinned, tying the conversion efficiency to the coherence of topological surface-state channels (single versus double two

What would settle it

Measure a control device with the BiFeO3 layer replaced by a nonmagnetic insulator of comparable resistivity, or with a magnetic field applied to suppress magnon transport; if the polarization-following voltage survives or does not scale with the remanent antiferromagnetic state, the spin-mediated interpretation of VSCC fails. Alternatively, calibrate the injected spin current with a ferromagnetic spin detector of known efficiency and compare the extracted spin Hall angle.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the spin-charge conversion voltage measured across a Bi2Te3/BiFeO3 bilayer is carried by the topological surface states of Bi2Te3, not by its conducting bulk. The authors show that this voltage tracks the ferroelectric polarization of BiFeO3, reverses sign when the injection current is reversed, and persists only for Bi2Te3 thicknesses above roughly 10 nm. Below that thickness the signal collapses, matching the reduction of the weak-antilocalization coherency factor and consistent with a hybridization gap that turns the ultrathin film into a trivial insulator. They conclude that spin-momentum-locked surface states dominate interfacial spin transport in this decouple

Load-bearing premise

The measured voltage is genuinely generated by spin injection into BiFeO3, magnon transport through it, and inverse Edelstein detection at the second Bi2Te3 electrode, rather than by ferroelectric switching, thermal gradients, or a charge artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Electric-field control of spin-charge conversion can be achieved in an all-insulating magnetic interface, without any applied magnetic field.
  • Spin transport through the antiferromagnetic insulator BiFeO3 is mediated by magnons, giving a nonlocal channel that is robust against charge shunting because BiFeO3 is a GΩ resistor.
  • The thickness threshold near 10 nm provides a design rule: topological-insulator spin devices must keep the active layer thick enough to avoid surface-state hybridization.
  • Sputter-deposited Bi2Te3 on BiFeO3 can serve as a scalable platform for spin-charge interconversion, with efficiencies comparable to or better than oxide spin-orbit metals.
  • If the measured voltage magnitude corresponds to the claimed conversion, the effective spin Hall angle of Bi2Te3 is close to theoretical estimates, making it a strong candidate for low-power spin logic.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism is right, the same device architecture should allow electric-field tuning of spin transport by reversing ferroelectric polarization at remanence, enabling nonvolatile memory-like switching without continuous power.
  • A testable extension is to thin or dope Bi2Te3 to move the Fermi level closer to the Dirac point; the model predicts the inverse Edelstein voltage should grow as the bulk channel is suppressed.
  • One could probe the magnon channel directly by introducing a nonmagnetic spacer between Bi2Te3 and BiFeO3; if the signal is truly magnon-mediated, even a few nanometers of a nonmagnetic insulator should kill it.
  • The thickness dependence suggests a route to device integration: choose a thickness just above 10 nm to retain robust surface-state conversion while minimizing bulk conduction.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports nonlocal spin-transport measurements in sputter-deposited Bi2Te3 films on epitaxial BiFeO3, claiming electric-field control of spin-charge conversion through the ferroelectric antiferromagnet. The authors present structural characterization, temperature-dependent resistivity, Hall and magnetoconductance measurements, and a thickness series of the nonlocal voltage VSCC. They interpret the thickness dependence and the HLN coherency factor as evidence that topological surface states dominate interfacial spin transport, with electric-field-controlled polarization of BiFeO3 modulating the magnon-mediated signal. The paper also compares VSCC with reported Pt and SrIrO3 values and argues for technological relevance of sputtered Bi2Te3.

Significance. If the central claim were established, this work would demonstrate electric-field-controlled spin-charge conversion through an insulating antiferromagnetic magnon medium, using a scalable sputtered topological insulator. The experimental design has notable strengths: a nonlocal geometry without an applied magnetic field, measurement of VSCC in the remanent polarization state, structural characterization of the heterointerface, and current-polarity and second-harmonic checks relevant to thermal artifacts. The reported magnitudes, if normalized properly, could be meaningful for spin-orbitronic applications. However, as written, the central interpretation is undermined by an internal contradiction and by the absence of independent, quantitative support for surface-state dominance. The work is potentially significant but currently falls short of establishing its headline conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [Results, Fig. 4 paragraph] The manuscript contains a direct contradiction that is load-bearing for the central claim. It states that VSCC 'remains nearly constant ... down to ~20 nm, indicative of being dominated by the surface' and that the thickness-dependent coherency factor shows 'excellent agreement with the spin-transport data, indicating that the efficiency of spin–charge conversion is dominated by the topological surface states.' The same paragraph then concludes: 'The conventional thickness dependence observed here suggests that spin transport is primarily governed by bulk conduction, as surface-state contributions are expected to be independent of thickness.' These statements cannot both hold: if surface-state contributions are thickness-independent, the observed suppression below ~15 nm cannot be used as evidence of surface-state dominance. The authors must resolve this inconsistency and provide a model
  2. [Results, magnetoconductance analysis (Fig. 2C and Fig. 4)] The HLN coherency factor is not an independent probe of topological surface-state transport. The manuscript itself acknowledges that 'the measured magnetoconductivity reflects parallel transport through both topological surface states and the conducting bulk, and the extracted HLN prefactor represents an effective contribution from multiple transport channels rather than isolated surface states.' The mapping of α to 1/π or 1/2π assumes the channels are purely 2D topological surface channels, which is not established given the admitted bulk contribution. Therefore, the agreement between ΔVSCC and α in Fig. 4 does not independently confirm that the spin-charge conversion is surface-dominated. A quantitative decomposition of the magnetoconductance into surface and bulk channels is needed.
  3. [Fig. 4 and thickness series] The thickness dependence is the central evidence for the topology-related conclusion, yet Fig. 4 shows no error bars, and the text does not report the number of devices or repeated measurements per thickness. Unlike Fig. 3, where a standard deviation is mentioned, the key ΔVSCC versus tBi2Te3 data lack uncertainty estimates. Given that the entire interpretation hinges on the trend in this figure, the authors need to provide replicate counts, error bars, and a statistical assessment of the thickness trend.
  4. [Results, comparison with Pt and SrIrO3; Methods, sign-reversal derivation] The claimed 'orders of magnitude larger than Pt' comparison and the inferred spin Hall angle are not substantiated by a quantitative conversion model. The RSCC comparison in Fig. 3D uses literature values from different device geometries and does not normalize for spin injection efficiency, magnon transport efficiency, or interface transparency. Moreover, the Methods derivation (Eqs. 1–9) is explicitly phenomenological and allows the sign reversal to arise from either surface IEE or bulk ISHE, or a crossover between them (Sec. 0.3). Without a quantitative conversion model and without a non-topological control sample measured in the same setup, the conclusion that spin-momentum-locked surface states dominate is not established.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 3B text] The text refers to 'shown in Fig. 1B' when discussing the ferroelectric polarization and VSCC hysteresis; the correct reference appears to be Fig. 3B. Please check all figure cross-references.
  2. [Results, resistivity discussion] The sentence 'Though the resistance of the lowest thickness is the largest (Fig. 2A)' should refer to Fig. 2B (resistivity versus temperature), not Fig. 2A (device geometry).
  3. [Fig. 3B caption] Typo: 'V oltage' should be 'Voltage'. Also, the caption should clarify which axis corresponds to polarization and which to VSCC.
  4. [Methods, sign-reversal section] The subsection numbering 'Methods 0.2' and internal references such as 'Equation.8' are awkward; please renumber and unify equation references.
  5. [Introduction/abstract] The phrase 'unprecedented direct evidence' is an overstatement. A more measured description, given the acknowledged bulk contribution, would be appropriate.
  6. [General] Some references are duplicated (e.g., Ref. 13 and 35 are both Kondou et al., Nature Physics 12, 1027 (2016)); consolidate to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central spin-transport observation is measured, not derived, and the HLN coherency factor is an independent observable; the surface/bulk thickness contradiction is an evidence-quality problem rather than a reduction of the conclusion to the inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental observation, not a derivation from an input. It measures ΔVSCC as a function of Bi2Te3 thickness and separately fits the HLN coherency factor α from magnetoconductance on the same films; plotting the two thickness series together is a consistency check, not a fitted-parameter prediction of a closely related quantity. The authors explicitly acknowledge that the measured magnetoconductivity includes a bulk contribution and that the extracted HLN prefactor 'represents an effective contribution from multiple transport channels rather than isolated surface states,' so the coherency factor is not presented as an independent, parameter-free proof. Self-citations (refs. 19, 22, 26, 36) are used for contextual comparison of the electric-field control method, not as the sole load-bearing justification for the surface-state claim. The most serious issue is an internal inconsistency in the thickness interpretation: the same Results paragraph says surface-state contributions are expected to be independent of thickness while using the observed thickness dependence to conclude surface-state dominance. That is a correctness/evidence problem—it weakens the inference and should be addressed—but it does not make the derivation circular: no equation is equivalent by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The measured nonlocal voltage and the independently fitted magnetoconductance parameter are distinct observables, so the claimed derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. Score 0.

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

The central claim rests on measured data plus a chain of modeling assumptions: Dirac surface physics, magnon transport in BFO, HLN channel-count mapping, and hybridization gap opening in thin films. No new physical entities are introduced. The fitted HLN prefactors and the phenomenological λ_SCC/η coefficients carry the main interpretive weight.

free parameters (4)
  • HLN prefactor α (coherency factor) = α = -0.27 (70 nm), -0.17 (15 nm), ≈0 (5 nm)
    Fitted to magnetoconductivity with the HLN model (Fig. 2C) and reinterpreted as the number of coherent topological 2D channels (1/π vs 1/2π) in Fig. 4; this fitted quantity is used to corroborate the surface-state interpretation.
  • Phase coherence length L_φ = not reported per thickness
    Second free parameter in the HLN fit; central to extracting α but its values are not given.
  • Carrier density n = ~1e15 cm^-2
    Extracted from the Hall slope; used to characterize the surface/bulk balance but not central to the spin-transport claim.
  • Spin-charge conversion coefficient λ_SCC / η = not determined
    Phenomenological material parameters introduced in Eqs. (7)-(8) of the sign-reversal derivation. The claim that Bi2Te3 has a large spin Hall angle is made by comparing VSCC voltages without independently determining these coefficients.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Bi2Te3 surface states obey the helical Dirac Hamiltonian and spin-momentum locking (Eq. 3).
    Invoked in Methods for the Edelstein-effect derivation; standard for topological insulator surface states.
  • standard math Boltzmann/Edelstein equations (1)-(5) describe the current-induced spin polarization at the Bi2Te3 interface.
    Used to explain sign reversal of VSCC; standard semiclassical transport theory.
  • domain assumption BiFeO3 is an insulating spin-transport medium that carries spin current via magnons, with GΩ resistance preventing charge leakage.
    State: 'The resistance of the magnonic medium BiFeO3 is of the order of GΩ, which protects against any charge current leakage to the detector.' This is load-bearing for the spin-transport interpretation.
  • domain assumption Ultrathin Bi2Te3 (~5 nm) undergoes surface-state hybridization that opens a trivial gap and suppresses topological transport.
    Inferred from the thickness dependence of VSCC and HLN fits; not directly measured by spectroscopy or band-structure mapping.
  • ad hoc to paper The HLN prefactor α maps directly to the number of coherent 2D topological conduction channels (1/π vs 1/2π).
    The dotted lines in Fig. 4 are interpreted as single versus double 2D channels; the authors concede bulk contributions make α an effective multi-channel quantity.
  • domain assumption Switching BiFeO3 polarization changes only the antiferromagnetic order and magnon transport, not other electronic properties of the stack.
    Required for the differential VSCC between +P and -P states to be attributed solely to spin-charge conversion; no control experiment isolating ferroelectric-induced changes in Bi2Te3 is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electric field controlled spin transport in a topological insulator interfaced with a ferroelectric antiferromagnet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/265SOU6Q

@misc{pith2026260714031,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electric field controlled spin transport in a topological insulator interfaced with a ferroelectric antiferromagnet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/265SOU6Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14031}
}
abstract

Topological insulators have been explored extensively for spin-charge interconversion via magnetic interfaces, yet the true response of their spin-charge conversion, particularly in the absence of an external magnetic field, remains to be studied. Here, we report electric-field control of spin-charge conversion in the topological insulator Bi$_2$Te$_3$ with the antiferromagnetic multiferroic BiFeO$_3$, employing a nonlocal spin transport device. A systematic thickness dependence of the spin transport across the interface between Bi$_2$Te$_3$ and BiFeO$_3$ reveals a signature of topological surface-state-dominated spin transport in the bilayer system. The spin-charge conversion remains robust for thicknesses above 10 nm but falls rapidly with reducing thickness and vanishes at 5 nm. This is consistent with the hybridization-induced emergence of a trivial insulating phase, which is supported by the coherency factor estimated from the magnetoconductance of Bi$_2$Te$_3$. These results establish that spin-momentum-locked surface states dominate interfacial spin transport in the decoupled regime. Beyond presenting efficient spin-charge interconversion at an entirely insulating magnetic interface, this work also highlights sputter-deposited Bi$_2$Te$_3$ as a high-quality and scalable platform for integrating quantum materials into devices. The nonlocal spin transport approach presented here provides a simple and direct evidence of spin-charge conversion and opens an efficient and practical pathway toward designing energy-efficient spin-based devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14031 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Epitaxial growth of Bi2Te3 on BiFeO3: (A) X-ray diffraction line scan in θ − 2θ geom￾etry of Bi2Te3/BiFeO3 heterostructure. (B) φ - scan of Bi2Te3 corresponding to the 015 reflection. Reciprocal space map of Bi2Te3/BiFeO3 along the (C) symmetric 220 and (D) asymmetric 332 plane of DyScO3 substrate. (E) HAADF cross-sectional TEM chemical mapping of Bi2Te3/BiFeO3 bilayer sample showing high quality crystallinity with … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Thickness-dependent transport of Bi2Te3/BiFeO3 heterostructures: (A) Device ge￾ometry and transport measurement circuit. The inset is the optical image of the Hall-bar device. Temperature-dependent (B) resistivity and (C) magnetoconductivity measured in various Bi2Te3 thicknesses with fixed BiFeO3. Magnetoconductivity data were recorded at a temperature of 2 K. Lines represent the fit to the Hikami–Larkin–Nagaoka (H… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spin transport in a topological insulator: (A) Non-local spin transport circuit for mea￾suring the spin charge conversion in Bi2Te3 with a constant current supply with a varying electric field. (B) Voltage is measured as a function of the electric field across the electrode. The data in black is the ferroelectric polarization from the ferroelectric BFO, and the data in green is the voltage due to spin-charge convers… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spin charge conversion and the influence of topological behavior: Differential spin charge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Y . K. Kato, R. C. Myers, A. C. Gossard, D. D. Awschalom,Science306, 1910 (2004)

    1910

  2. [2]

    Saitoh, M

    E. Saitoh, M. Ueda, H. Miyajima, G. Tatara,Applied Physics Letters88, 182509 (2006). 18

    2006

  3. [3]

    Sinova, S

    J. Sinova, S. O. Valenzuela, J. Wunderlich, C. H. Back, T. Jungwirth,Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1213 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    M. Z. Hasan, C. L. Kane,Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    Qi, S.-C

    X.-L. Qi, S.-C. Zhang,Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 1057 (2011)

    2011

  6. [6]

    Zhang, C.-X

    H. Zhang, C.-X. Liu, X.-L. Qi, X. Dai, Z. Fang, S.-C. Zhang,Nature Physics5, 438 (2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    Dankert, P

    A. Dankert, P. Bhaskar, D. Khokhriakov, I. H. Rodrigues, B. Karpiak, M. V . Kamalakar, S. Char- pentier, I. Garate, S. P. Dash,Phys. Rev. B97, 125414 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    M. A. Hoque, L. Sj ¨ostr¨om, D. Khokhriakov, B. Zhao, S. P. Dash,npj 2D Materials and Applica- tions8, 10 (2024)

    2024

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    A. R. Mellnik, J. S. Lee, A. Richardella, J. L. Grab, P. J. Mintun, M. H. Fischer, A. Vaezi, A. Manchon, E.-A. Kim, N. Samarth, D. C. Ralph,Nature511, 449 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Y . Fan, P. Upadhyaya, X. Kou, M. Lang, S. Takei, Z. Wang, J. Tang, L. He, L.-T. Chang, M. Mon- tazeri,et al.,Nature Materials13, 699 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Shiomi, K

    Y . Shiomi, K. Nomura, Y . Kajiwara, K. Eto, V . Nov´ak, K. Segawa, Y . Ando, E. Saitoh,Physical Review Letters113, 196601 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Jamali, J

    M. Jamali, J. S. Lee, J. S. Jeong, F. Mahfouzi, Y . Lv, Z. Zhao, B. K. Nikoli ´c, K. A. Mkhoyan, N. Samarth, J.-P. Wang,Nano Letters15, 7126 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Kondou, R

    K. Kondou, R. Yoshimi, A. Tsukazaki, Y . Fukuma, J. Matsuno, K. S. Takahashi, M. Kawasaki, Y . Tokura, Y . Otani,Nature Physics12, 1027 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    M. A. Noyan, X. Zhang, J. Moon, E. Cobas, M. Lohmann, Q. Zou, L. Li, M. Weinert, B. T. Jonker, O. M. J. van ‘t Erve, C. H. Li,Nano Letters25, 6357 (2025). 19

    2025

  7. [15]

    Rojas-S ´anchez, S

    J.-C. Rojas-S ´anchez, S. Oyarz´un, Y . Fu, A. Marty, C. Vergnaud, S. Gambarelli, L. Vila, M. Jamet, Y . Ohtsubo, A. Taleb-Ibrahimi, P. Le F`evre, F. Bertran, N. Reyren, J.-M. George, A. Fert,Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 096602 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    W. Han, Y . Otani, S. Maekawa,npj Quantum Materials3, 27 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Sundararajan, D

    K. Sundararajan, D. K. de Wal, S. Alvarruiz, C. A. Cordero-Silis, M. Ahmadi, M. H. Guimar˜aes, B. J. van Wees,Acs Nano19, 38716 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Cornelissen, J

    L. Cornelissen, J. Liu, R. Duine, J. B. Youssef, B. Van Wees,Nature Physics11, 1022 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Husain, I

    S. Husain, I. Harris, P. Meisenheimer, S. Mantri, X. Li, M. Ramesh, P. Behera, H. Taghine- jad, J. Kim, P. Kavle, S. Zhou, T. Y . Kim, H. Zhang, P. Stevenson, J. G. Analytis, D. Schlom, S. Salahuddin, J. ´I˜niguez-Gonz´alez, B. Xu, L. W. Martin, L. Caretta, Y . Han, L. Bellaic...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Jungwirth, X

    T. Jungwirth, X. Marti, P. Wadley, J. Wunderlich,Nature Nanotechnology11, 231 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Baltz, A

    V . Baltz, A. Manchon, M. Tsoi, T. Moriyama, T. Ono, Y . Tserkovnyak,Reviews of Modern Physics90, 015005 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Meisenheimer, M

    P. Meisenheimer, M. Ramesh, S. Husain, I. Harris, H. W. Park, S. Zhou, H. Taghinejad, H. Zhang, L. W. Martin, J. Analytis, P. Stevenson, J.´I˜niguez-Gonz´alez, S. K. Kim, D. G. Schlom, L. Caretta, Z. Yao, R. Ramesh,Advanced Materials36, 2404639 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Pandey, S

    L. Pandey, S. Husain, V . Barwal, S. Hait, N. K. Gupta, V . Mishra, N. Kumar, N. Sharma, D. Dixit, V . Singh, S. Chaudhary,Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter35, 355702 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    H. T. He, G. Wang, T. Zhang, I.-K. Sou, G. K. L. Wong, J.-N. Wang, H.-Z. Lu, S.-Q. Shen, F.-C. Zhang,Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 166805 (2011). 20

    2011

  17. [25]

    A. Roy, S. Guchhait, S. Sonde, R. Dey, T. Pramanik, A. Rai, H. C. P. Movva, L. Colombo, S. K. Banerjee,Appl. Phys. Lett.102, 163118 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    Huang, X

    X. Huang, X. Chen, Y . Li, J. Mangeri, H. Zhang, M. Ramesh, H. Taghinejad, P. Meisenheimer, L. Caretta, S. Susarla,et al.,Nature materials23, 898 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Hikami, A

    S. Hikami, A. I. Larkin, Y . Nagaoka,Progress of Theoretical Physics63, 707 (1980)

    1980

  20. [28]

    Y . S. Kim, M. Brahlek, N. Bansal, E. Edrey, G. A. Kapilevich, K. Iida, M. Tanimura, Y . Horibe, S.-W. Cheong, S. Oh,Phys. Rev. B84, 073109 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    A. A. Taskin, S. Sasaki, K. Segawa, Y . Ando,Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 066803 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Hoefer, C

    K. Hoefer, C. Becker, D. Rata, J. Swanson, P. Thalmeier, L. H. Tjeng,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111, 14979 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    N. P. Butch, K. Kirshenbaum, P. Syers, A. B. Sushkov, G. S. Jenkins, H. D. Drew, J. Paglione, Phys. Rev. B81, 241301(R) (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    Zhang, K

    Y . Zhang, K. He, C.-Z. Chang, C.-L. Song, L.-L. Wang, X. Chen, J.-F. Jia, Z. Fang, X. Dai, W.-Y . Shan,et al.,Nature Physics6, 584 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    Chiu, J.-J

    S.-P. Chiu, J.-J. Lin,Phys. Rev. B87, 035122 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Y . Chen, J. G. Analytis, J.-H. Chu, Z. Liu, S.-K. Mo, X.-L. Qi, H. Zhang, D. Lu, X. Dai, Z. Fang, et al.,science325, 178 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Kondou, R

    K. Kondou, R. Yoshimi, A. Tsukazaki, Y . Fukuma, J. Matsuno, K. Takahashi, M. Kawasaki, Y . Tokura, Y . Otani,Nature Physics12, 1027 (2016). 21

    2016

  28. [36]

    Y . Chai, Y . Liang, C. Xiao, Y . Wang, B. Li, D. Jiang, P. Pal, Y . Tang, H. Chen, Y . Zhang, H. Bai, T. Xu, W. Jiang, W. Skowro´nski, Q. Zhang, L. Gu, J. Ma, P. Yu, J. Tang, Y . H. Lin, D. Yi, D. C. Ralph, C. B. Eom, H. Wu, T. Nan,Nature Communications 2024 15:115, 1 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    S. M. Farzaneh, S. Rakheja,Phys. Rev. Mater .4, 114202 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Manipatruni, D

    S. Manipatruni, D. E. Nikonov, C.-C. Lin, T. A. Gosavi, H. Liu, B. Prasad, Y .-L. Huang, E. Bon- turim, R. Ramesh, I. A. Young,Nature565, 35 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Husain, M

    S. Husain, M. Ramesh, X. Li, S. Prokhorenko, S. K. Ojha, A. Ross, K. Das, B. Zhao, H. W. Park, P. Meisenheimer, Y . Nahas, L. Caretta, L. W. Martin, S. K. Kim, Z. Yao, H. Wen, S. Salahuddin, L.-Q. Chen, Y . Han, R. de Sousa, L. Bellaiche, M. Bibes, D. G. Schlom, R. Ramesh,Natu...

    2026

  32. [40]

    V . M. Edelstein,Solid State Commun.73, 233 (1990)

    1990

  33. [41]

    K. Shen, G. Vignale, R. Raimondi,Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 096601 (2014). Acknowledgments We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Professor Nitin Samarth for the stimulating dis- cussions and constructive feedback. This work was primarily supported by the U.S. Department ...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.