Circular photogalvanic effect in an inversion-symmetry-broken bilayer germanium nanosheet

(2) Nagoya Unib.; 3); (3) Fukuoka Univ.; 4; (4) PRESTO-JST); 5) ((1) Kyoto Univ.; Akio Ohta (2; Ei Shigematsu (1); Junji Yuhara (2); Keigo Matsushita (2)

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 6 references

Circular photogalvanic effect in an inversion-symmetry-broken bilayer germanium nanosheet

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bilayer germanium nanosheet converts light helicity into current most efficiently.

desk verdict A credible CPGE fingerprint on a Ge nanosheet, but the bilayer-thickness peak is not supported by the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13947 v1 pith:3PMSM6FM submitted 2024-11-21 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Taiki Nishijima (1) , Ei Shigematsu (1) , Ryo Ohshima (1) , Keigo Matsushita (2) , Akio Ohta (2 , 3) , Masaaki Araidai (2) , Junji Yuhara (2)

show 8 more authors

Masashi Kurosawa (2) Masashi Shiraishi (1) Yuichiro Ando (1 4 5) ((1) Kyoto Univ. (2) Nagoya Unib. (3) Fukuoka Univ. (4) PRESTO-JST)

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords GermaniumnanosheetGermaneneRashbainterfacespin-splittingstatecircularphotogalvaniceffectspin-to-chargeconversion

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 claims that a germanium nanosheet grown on aluminum supports a circular photogalvanic effect (CPGE): a helicity-dependent photocurrent generated when circularly polarized light excites carriers into a Rashba-type spin-split state. The authors report that the CPGE current peaks when the nanosheet thickness corresponds to bilayer germanene, and argue that the top layer, isolated from the aluminum seed by the bottom layer, is the dominant spin-to-charge conversion channel. If the claim holds, CPGE becomes a practical optical probe of spin-split band structure in two-dimensional materials on metallic substrates, and bilayer germanene emerges as a particularly efficient spin-charge converter. The paper's central assertion is that the measured current is genuine CPGE from the Ge nanosheet rather than an artifact of the aluminum layer or interface.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the phenomenological CPGE framework: the polarization-dependent photocurrent is fit to $I_{\mathrm{photo}} = C \sin 2(\psi+\psi_0) + L_1 \sin 4(\psi+\psi_0) + L_2 \cos 4(\psi+\psi_0) + D$, where the $C$ term is the circular contribution, and the angle-of-incidence dependence of the CPGE current (Eq. 8) is derived from the CPGE tensor together with Fresnel transmission coefficients $t_p$ and $t_s$. The match between Eq. 8 and the measured $\theta$-dependence connects the observed current to a spin-split band structure. A second control is the thickness series: post-annealing temperature sets how much Ge segregates, so the CPGE amplitude can be compared against XPS-measured $t_{\mathrm{Ge}}$. The bilayer maximum then links the effect to the decoupled top layer.

What would settle it

Measure the same sample with spin- and angle-resolved photoemission to see whether the spin-split bands are localized in the top Ge layer; alternatively, remove the top Ge layer by controlled oxidation or etching while keeping the Al/Ge interface intact and check whether the CPGE current disappears. A quantitative check is to compare the measured $\theta$-dependence against Eq. 8 with independently obtained refractive-index and thickness values rather than fitting parameters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the helicity-dependent photocurrent in Al2O3/Al/Ge-nanosheet stacks is a circular photogalvanic effect from a Rashba-type spin-splitting state in the Ge nanosheet. The current reverses sign when the light helicity flips, disappears at normal incidence, follows the angle-of-incidence dependence predicted by Eq. 8, and scales linearly with optical power. By varying the post-annealing temperature to control the segregated Ge thickness, the authors find the CPGE amplitude is largest when the XPS-derived thickness equals that of bilayer germanene. They conclude that the top layer of the bilayer, decoupled from the Al seed, is the key contributor, and that the inversion symmetry breaking perpendicular to the film plane enables the spin-to-charge conversion.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the helicity-dependent photocurrent is generated inside the Ge nanosheet by a Rashba-type spin-split state of the top layer, not by the aluminum layer, the Al/Ge interface, or an optical artifact such as thickness-dependent absorption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

CPGE can serve as an optical, contact-free probe of spin-split states in group-IV Xenes even when they are grown on metallic seed layers.
Bilayer germanene, with its top layer isolated from the Al seed, is a more efficient spin-to-charge converter than monolayer germanene on Al, suggesting a general 'decoupling by thickness' design rule.
The sharp reduction of the CPGE current when the sample is annealed at 400 °C shows that the condition of the top Ge layer, not just total thickness, controls the spin-to-charge conversion efficiency.
The observed match between the measured $\theta$-dependence and Eq. 8 means that the direction and magnitude of the CPGE current can be engineered through the angle of incidence and light helicity.

Reading between the lines

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

The decoupling-by-thickness design rule implied here could transfer to other group-IV Xenes, where the larger intrinsic spin-orbit interaction of heavier elements would make the top-layer isolation even more consequential.
A direct spin-resolved ARPES measurement on the same bilayer stack would test the claim that the Rashba-split bands reside in the top Ge layer; without such a measurement, the thickness-based argument is indirect.
Repeating the thickness series with several nominally identical samples would quantify the scatter in the peak at TPA = 300 °C, which currently rests on single-point data without error bars.
Because the CPGE current is sensitive to the top-layer condition, selective oxidation or patterning of the top layer could turn this effect into a spatially resolved probe of spin-splitting states.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Let me give you the short version: this paper has a solid CPGE measurement with the right symmetry checks, but the headline claim about a bilayer optimum is built on a four-point thickness series that doesn't exclude a much simpler explanation.

What's actually new: CPGE on a segregation-grown Ge nanosheet on Al(111) with an Al2O3 cap. To my knowledge, no one has reported this before. The polarization dependence is dominated by the C sin(2ψ) term, the angle dependence follows the Fresnel-based Eq. 8 with a peak near 35°, and the current scales linearly with power. These checks are exactly what you want to see for CPGE from a Rashba-type spin-split state. The authors also deserve credit for labeling the material a 'Ge nanosheet' rather than germanene, and for explicitly saying it's not clear whether the effect relates to germanene.

The soft spot is the thickness series in Fig. 4. It has four TPA points, one measurement each, no error bars. The 300°C point is the max, but it's also the thickest unoxidized film; the 400°C sample is oxidized and the current drops. So the data are equally consistent with a CPGE that grows with Ge coverage and then is suppressed by oxidation. That alternative is not excluded. The assertion that the Al layer and Al/Ge interface don't change with TPA is just stated, not shown. There are also minor issues: the refractive index n in the Fresnel fit is never stated, and the atomic structure of the measured samples was not confirmed by STM or ARPES—the honeycomb structure is borrowed from prior work on similar samples. Those are addressable, but they matter because the 'top layer mainly contributed' conclusion is an interpretation on top of a weak thickness trend.

The stress-test note is right. If I were refereeing, I'd ask for more thickness points, error bars, an unoxidized sample thicker than bilayer, and controls for the Al contribution. The paper is worth a serious referee: the CPGE detection is credible, the authors are honest about limitations, and the approach could be useful to people studying spin-to-charge conversion in Xenes on metallic seed layers. But the central thickness attribution should not survive without revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports helicity-dependent photocurrents in Al2O3/Ge-nanosheet/Al(111)/Ge(111) stacks fabricated by Ge segregation, and attributes the circular-polarization-dependent component to the circular photogalvanic effect (CPGE) arising from a Rashba-type spin-split state in the Ge nanosheet. The authors show that the CPGE current reverses sign with opposite circular polarization, follows the expected angle-of-incidence dependence described by their Eq. (8), and scales linearly with optical power. As the central claim, they compare samples annealed at different temperatures (before annealing, 200, 300, 400 °C) and find the largest CPGE current for the 300 °C sample, whose XPS-derived Ge thickness is near that of bilayer germanene; they then conclude that the top Ge layer, isolated from the Al seed layer, mainly contributes to the spin-to-charge conversion. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the honeycomb atomic structure was not confirmed in the measured samples.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work would demonstrate a practical optical method to probe spin-split states in group-IV Xenes grown on metallic seeds, and would identify the bilayer geometry as an optimal configuration for spin-to-charge conversion. The paper includes several falsifiable checks—polarization dependence, theta dependence, power linearity, and a thickness series—which are appropriate and, for the phenomenological CPGE identification, largely convincing. The main scientific value, however, rests on the thickness-to-bilayer attribution, and that step is currently under-supported. The authors are candid about the missing structural confirmation, which is a strength in transparency but also a limitation of the evidence for the specific mechanism proposed.

major comments (4)

[Fig. 4(b-d)] The claim that the CPGE current peaks at bilayer germanene thickness is underdetermined by the four-point annealing series. The 300 °C point is the only unoxidized super-monolayer point, and the 400 °C sample is explicitly oxidized (Ge–O signal in Fig. 4(a)). With one measurement per TPA and no reported error bars, the data are equally consistent with a monotonic increase of the CPGE current with Ge coverage that is then reduced at 400 °C purely by oxidation. To support an intrinsic bilayer optimum, the authors should provide additional TPA points, error bars or repeated-sample statistics, and a way to separate coverage effects from oxidation effects (e.g., a passivated 400 °C sample or a plot of CPGE current versus tGe with oxidation state indicated).
[Discussion of Al/interface contribution] The sentence "the conditions of the Al layer and Ge nanosheet/Al interface are not strongly dependent on TPA" is load-bearing because it excludes alternative origins of the thickness-dependent CPGE. No characterization of the Al layer or the Ge/Al interface as a function of TPA is shown. If, for example, the interface quality or Al morphology changes with TPA, the CPGE could originate there rather than in the Ge nanosheet. The authors should either provide supporting data (e.g., Al 2p XPS, sheet resistance, or a control sample without Ge) or soften this assertion and its role in the conclusion.
[Layer-resolved interpretation] The conclusion that the top layer of the bilayer nanosheet 'mainly contributed' to the spin-to-charge conversion is inferred solely from the maximum at approximately bilayer thickness. This inference requires the bilayer structure to be established in the measured samples, but the paper states that STM could not confirm the honeycomb structure because of the Al2O3 layer and that 'it is not clear whether the obtained CPGE is related to the characteristics of germanene.' Without direct structural confirmation or a layer-resolved measurement (e.g., a thickness-dependent study with independent structural characterization), the assignment of the signal to an isolated top Ge layer remains speculative. Please reframe the claim as a hypothesis consistent with the data, or add structural evidence.
[Eq. (8) and Fig. 3(a)] The angle-of-incidence fit relies on Eq. (8) with the refractive index n as an input or fitting parameter, but the manuscript does not state whether n was fixed or free, what value was used (or obtained), or the resulting fit quality. This matters because the theta-dependence is presented as key evidence that the CPGE originates from the Ge nanosheet rather than from an optical artifact. Please report n, the fitting procedure, and a goodness-of-fit measure.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and text] The term 'spin-to-charge conversion' is used throughout, but CPGE measures a photocurrent generated by optical spin orientation; it is not a transport-based spin injection/detection measurement. The authors may wish to specify 'optical spin-to-charge conversion' or 'helicity-driven photocurrent' to avoid overgeneralization.
[Fig. 2 caption] The caption states that the circular-polarization-dependent term is shown by a green line, but the preceding sentence lists red, green, and blue lines for C, L1, and L2; please clarify the color assignments in both the caption and the main text.
[Fig. 4(b)] The text says 'tGe monotonically increased with TPA,' but the four measured points (without annealing, 200, 300, 400 °C) with no error bars do not establish monotonicity in a statistically robust sense. Consider phrasing as 'tended to increase with TPA in this series.'
[General] There are several typographical and grammatical issues, e.g., 'the exited electron' should be 'the excited electron,' 'the amplitude or 𝑬' should be 'of 𝑬,' and 'the second layer of the bilayer Ge nanosheet' is repeated in the conclusion. A careful proofreading pass is recommended.
[Reference 45] Reference 45 is a personal communication for the spin-orbit coupling strength of Al; please replace it with a published source or add a brief justification in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the CPGE amplitude is a measured fit coefficient, the Fresnel θ-dependence is an external consistency check, and the thickness series is an independent measurement; the only self-citations to prior structural work are not definitionally tied to the CPGE result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The circular-polarization term C sin 2(ψ+ψ0) in Eq. (1) is a fit to measured lock-in photocurrents; it is not defined by the bilayer-thickness conclusion. The θ-dependence is compared against the standard Fresnel expression Eq. (8), which is an external phenomenological formula, and the observed sign reversal with θ is an additional independent check. The thickness series in Fig. 4 is an independent measurement (XPS-derived tGe versus CPGE amplitude), not a fit of the conclusion parameter; the paper explicitly notes that the 400°C point is oxidized and that atomic structure was not confirmed ('It is not clear whether the obtained CPGE is related to the characteristics of germanene because the atomic arrangement was not revealed'). The main self-references (Refs. 24 and 47, to STM-segregation and fabrication work by overlapping authors) are used only to motivate calling the layer a Ge nanosheet and to extrapolate a honeycomb structure; they do not enter the CPGE equations or the thickness comparison by construction, and the authors refrain from making the germanene attribution load-bearing. Hence no circular step exists. The bilayer-maximum inference has unaddressed confounds—only one super-bilayer point, oxidation at 400°C, no error bars—but underdetermination is a correctness and robustness concern, not circularity.

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

The central mechanism rests on standard CPGE phenomenology, the segregation history of the samples, and assumptions about layer isolation that are not directly measured here. No new entities are postulated; the free parameters appear in the photocurrent fitting, the Fresnel angle fit, and the XPS thickness calibration.

free parameters (3)

Refractive index n in Fresnel fit (Eq. 8) = not stated
The theta-dependence fit in Fig. 3(a) uses Eq. 8, which depends on n; no fitted n value is reported in the main text.
CPGE amplitude C and linear coefficients L1, L2, D in Eq. 1 = not reported per sample
These fit coefficients are used to isolate the CPGE term from the raw photocurrent; the central comparison across TPA uses the extracted C values, but parameter uncertainties are not given.
XPS thickness conversion parameters = not stated
The tGe estimate is obtained from Ge/Al intensity ratios via a model whose attenuation lengths, densities, and layer geometry are only described in the SI, which is not included here.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The helicity-dependent term C sin(2psi + psi0) in Eq. 1 represents a CPGE current from spin-split states.
This is the standard phenomenological description of CPGE, but it assumes no other helicity-dependent artifact contributes to the measured current.
domain assumption Inversion symmetry is broken along the film normal by the asymmetric Al2O3/Ge/Al interfaces, producing a Rashba-type spin splitting.
The band structure of the measured Ge nanosheet is not directly measured; the Rashba state is inferred from the broken interface symmetry and the observed phenomenology.
domain assumption The segregated Ge nanosheet has the same honeycomb structure as in prior STM work on samples without the Al2O3 cap.
The authors extrapolate from ref. 24 because the Al2O3 cap prevented STM in the present samples; they acknowledge this extrapolation in the text.
domain assumption The second Ge layer is electronically isolated from the Al layer and has a simple Rashba-split band structure.
This is based on prior DFT calculations for germanene/Al and on the authors' reasoning about orbital hybridization; it is not verified by experiment here.
domain assumption Light is strongly reflected at the Al surface, so the Ge substrate and the bulk Al layer contribute negligibly to the photocurrent.
The argument relies on the 25 nm Al thickness and reflection at the Al surface; quantitative absorption and substrate contributions are not shown.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Circular photogalvanic effect in an inversion-symmetry-broken bilayer germanium nanosheet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3PMSM6FM

@misc{pith2026241113947,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Circular photogalvanic effect in an inversion-symmetry-broken bilayer germanium nanosheet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3PMSM6FM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13947}
}

read the original abstract

Spin-to-charge conversion in monolayer and bilayer germanium(Ge) nanosheets was demonstrated via the circular photogalvanic effect (CPGE). The CPGE current generated in a spin-splitting state of the Ge nanosheet reached a maximum value when the thickness of the Ge nanosheet corresponded to bilayer germanene, indicating that the top layer of the bilayer Ge nanosheet mainly contributed to the spin-to-charge conversion. Because the hybridization of orbitals is suppressed by isolation from the bottom Al layer for the top Ge nanosheet, the observed spin-to-charge conversion has a possibility to be related to the intrinsic features of germanene with breaking of inversion symmetry.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

6 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

[1]

S.; Mishchenko, A.; Carvalho, A.; Castro Neto, A

(1) Novoselov, K. S.; Mishchenko, A.; Carvalho, A.; Castro Neto, A. H. 2D Materials and van Der Waals Heterostructures. Science 2016, 353 (6298). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac9439. (2) Castellanos-Gomez, A.; Duan, X.; Fei, Z.; Gutierrez, H. R.; Huang, Y.; Huang, X.; Quereda, J.; Qian, Q.; Sutter, E.; Sutter, P. Van Der Waals Heterostructures. Nat. R...

doi:10.1126/science.aac9439 2016
[6]

M.; Echenique, P

(49) Bihlmayer, G.; Koroteev, Y. M.; Echenique, P. M.; Chulkov, E. V.; Blügel, S. The Rashba -Effect at Metallic Surfaces. Surf. Sci. 2006, 600 (18), 3888–3891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susc.2006.01.098. (50) Nagano, M.; Kodama, A.; Shishidou, T.; Oguchi, T. A First-Principles Study on the Rashba Effect in Surface Systems. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2009, ...

work page doi:10.1016/j.susc.2006.01.098 2006
[58]

Nano WaterCube

https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00139-1. (3) Yankowitz, M.; Ma, Q.; Jarillo-Herrero, P.; LeRoy, B. J. Van Der Waals Heterostructures Combining Graphene and Hexagonal Boron Nitride. Nat. Rev. Phys. 2019, 1 (2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-018-0016-0. (4) Geng, H.; Yuan, D.; Yang, Z.; Tang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Yang, K.; Su, Y. Graphene van Der Waa...

arXiv 2019
[97]

(52) McIver, J

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.041115. (52) McIver, J. W.; Hsieh, D.; Steinberg, H.; Jarillo-Herrero, P.; Gedik, N. Control over Topological Insulator Photocurrents with Light Polarization. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2012, 7 (2), 96–100. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2011.214. (53) Wang, S.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, J.; Li, S.; Luo, D.; Wang, J.; Jin, K.; Sun, J. Ci...

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.97.041115 2012
[1037]

(61) Watanabe, H.; Yanase, Y

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00711-4. (61) Watanabe, H.; Yanase, Y. Chiral Photocurrent in Parity-Violating Magnet and Enhanced Response in Topological Antiferromagnet. Phys. Rev. X 2021, 11 (1), 011001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.11.011001. (62) Ganichev, S. D.; Prettl, W. Spin Photocurrents in Quantum Wells. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2003, 15...

doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00711-4 2021
[2023]

Observation of Large Unidirectional Rashba Magnetoresistance in Ge(111)

(46) Guillet, T.; Zucchetti, C.; Barbedienne, Q.; Marty, A.; Isella, G.; Cagnon, L.; Vergnaud, C.; Jaffrès, H.; Reyren, N.; George, J.-M.; Fert, A.; Jamet, M. Observation of Large Unidirectional Rashba Magnetoresistance in Ge(111). Phys. Rev. Lett. 2020, 124 (2), 027201. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.027201. (47) Matsushita, K.; Ohta, A.; Taoka,...

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.027201 2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

S.; Mishchenko, A.; Carvalho, A.; Castro Neto, A

(1) Novoselov, K. S.; Mishchenko, A.; Carvalho, A.; Castro Neto, A. H. 2D Materials and van Der Waals Heterostructures. Science 2016, 353 (6298). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac9439. (2) Castellanos-Gomez, A.; Duan, X.; Fei, Z.; Gutierrez, H. R.; Huang, Y.; Huang, X.; Quereda, J.; Qian, Q.; Sutter, E.; Sutter, P. Van Der Waals Heterostructures. Nat. R...

doi:10.1126/science.aac9439 2016

[2] [6]

M.; Echenique, P

(49) Bihlmayer, G.; Koroteev, Y. M.; Echenique, P. M.; Chulkov, E. V.; Blügel, S. The Rashba -Effect at Metallic Surfaces. Surf. Sci. 2006, 600 (18), 3888–3891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susc.2006.01.098. (50) Nagano, M.; Kodama, A.; Shishidou, T.; Oguchi, T. A First-Principles Study on the Rashba Effect in Surface Systems. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2009, ...

work page doi:10.1016/j.susc.2006.01.098 2006

[3] [58]

Nano WaterCube

https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00139-1. (3) Yankowitz, M.; Ma, Q.; Jarillo-Herrero, P.; LeRoy, B. J. Van Der Waals Heterostructures Combining Graphene and Hexagonal Boron Nitride. Nat. Rev. Phys. 2019, 1 (2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-018-0016-0. (4) Geng, H.; Yuan, D.; Yang, Z.; Tang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Yang, K.; Su, Y. Graphene van Der Waa...

arXiv 2019

[4] [97]

(52) McIver, J

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.041115. (52) McIver, J. W.; Hsieh, D.; Steinberg, H.; Jarillo-Herrero, P.; Gedik, N. Control over Topological Insulator Photocurrents with Light Polarization. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2012, 7 (2), 96–100. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2011.214. (53) Wang, S.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, J.; Li, S.; Luo, D.; Wang, J.; Jin, K.; Sun, J. Ci...

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.97.041115 2012

[5] [1037]

(61) Watanabe, H.; Yanase, Y

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00711-4. (61) Watanabe, H.; Yanase, Y. Chiral Photocurrent in Parity-Violating Magnet and Enhanced Response in Topological Antiferromagnet. Phys. Rev. X 2021, 11 (1), 011001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.11.011001. (62) Ganichev, S. D.; Prettl, W. Spin Photocurrents in Quantum Wells. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2003, 15...

doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00711-4 2021

[6] [2023]

Observation of Large Unidirectional Rashba Magnetoresistance in Ge(111)

(46) Guillet, T.; Zucchetti, C.; Barbedienne, Q.; Marty, A.; Isella, G.; Cagnon, L.; Vergnaud, C.; Jaffrès, H.; Reyren, N.; George, J.-M.; Fert, A.; Jamet, M. Observation of Large Unidirectional Rashba Magnetoresistance in Ge(111). Phys. Rev. Lett. 2020, 124 (2), 027201. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.027201. (47) Matsushita, K.; Ohta, A.; Taoka,...

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.027201 2020