Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 46 references

Orbital Hybridization Induces Giant Cubic Rashba Effect at Cu/WO$_{3}$ Interface

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 The Cu/WO3 interface produces a cubic Rashba spin splitting comparable to SrTiO3-based systems.

desk verdict Solid computational study predicting a large cubic Rashba effect at Cu/WO3; the headline 'intrinsic' value is an extrapolation from an unconverged thickness trend, but the qualitative result is likely right. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14069 v1 pith:C66XEIXN submitted 2026-07-15 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Md Aktar Hossain , Saikat Das This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall
keywords Rashbaeffectcubicspinsplittingspin-orbitcouplingorbitalhybridizationCu/WO3heterostructuredensityfunctionaltheoryspin-momentumlockingspintronics
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 argues that coupling a light metal (Cu) to a heavy-element insulator (WO3) produces an interface state with a robust Rashba spin splitting that contains a large cubic-in-momentum term, not just the usual linear one. The splitting is driven by the strong spin-orbit coupling of W atoms and enabled by W–Cu orbital hybridization at the interface. The paper extracts an intrinsic cubic Rashba parameter of about −1.93 eV·Å3 and a linear parameter of about +0.49 eV·Å for the Cu(001)/WO3(001) interface, values that rival or exceed SrTiO3-based systems. If correct, this identifies Cu/WO3 as a light-metal platform for spin-charge conversion and a testbed for nonlinear Rashba phenomena.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is the W–Cu orbital hybridization at the WO2-terminated interface, specifically the overlap of W d_xz/d_yz with Cu s/p_z orbitals, which is absent when the interface is O-terminated. This hybridization transfers W's strong spin-orbit coupling into a near-interface metallic state while the C4v symmetry of the (001) interface (from bulk O_h to surface/interface C4v) permits both linear and cubic terms in the Rashba Hamiltonian. The paper uses the two-parameter splitting formula ΔE(k)=2α_R k + 2α̃_R k³ as the model, and uses Cu-thickness dependence to separate the intrinsic cubic parameter from cross-coupling contributions.

What would settle it

A thickness series of density functional theory calculations at 41, 45, and 49 monolayers of Cu that shows |α̃_R| continuing to increase appreciably beyond 1.93 eV·Å³ would falsify the 'intrinsic' claim; alternatively, an angle-resolved photoemission measurement of an epitaxial Cu(001)/WO3(001) film with a ≥12 nm Cu layer that yields a fit with α̃_R far from −1.93 eV·Å³ (or no cubic term) would disprove the predicted interface state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the WO2-terminated Cu(001)/WO3(001) interface hosts an electron-like interface state (the β band) whose spin splitting obeys ΔE(k)=2α_R k + 2α̃_R k³ with α_R ≈ +0.49 eV·Å and α̃_R ≈ −1.93 eV·Å³ in the thick-Cu limit. The large cubic term arises because the strong spin-orbit coupling of W atoms is transferred to the hybridized Cu–W interface states; bare WO3 has only a negligible cubic term, while the bare Cu surface has weak Rashba splitting. The paper further shows the effect persists for (110) and (111) Cu orientations and for different atomic registries, and it attributes the thickness dependence of α̃_R to cross-coupling between the

Load-bearing premise

The claim that −1.93 eV·Å³ is the intrinsic cubic Rashba parameter rests on the assumption that at 33 or more monolayers of copper the vacuum/Cu and Cu/WO3 interfaces are effectively decoupled, but the paper's own data show the magnitude still increasing between 31 and 37 monolayers, with no point beyond 37 monolayers, so the headline value is an extrapolation rather than a demonstrably converged limit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cu/WO3 becomes a strong candidate for spin-charge conversion and spin-orbit-torque studies using only light-metal/oxide heterostructures, with no elemental heavy metal required.
  • The cubic Rashba term produces non-trivial spin textures with radial spin components and triple winding, which should be detectable in spin- and angle-resolved photoemission.
  • The extracted parameters rival SrTiO3-based interfaces, suggesting Cu/WO3/ferromagnet stacks may show spin-orbit torque efficiencies comparable to those systems.
  • Design rules follow: a Cu thickness around 12 nm or more decouples the two interfaces and gives the intrinsic cubic value; kinetically stabilizing Cu atoms directly under W atoms maximizes the effect.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own thickness dataset suggests |α̃_R| has not fully converged by 37 ML; a natural extension is to compute thicker Cu slabs (41–49 ML) to see whether the intrinsic value is larger than −1.93 eV·Å³.
  • If hybridization with W is the switch, other light metals (Ag, Au) on WO3 or on similar heavy-transition-metal oxides (MoO3, ReO3) should show analogous cubic Rashba effects; this is a testable prediction the paper does not make.
  • The sign of the cubic term differs between the β interface state (negative) and the γ quantum-well state (positive), which, if exploitable, could allow momentum-selective spin filtering in the same heterostructure.
  • A comparison with an O-terminated interface (weak Rashba) provides a built-in control experiment: growing a single O interlayer at the Cu/WO3 junction should suppress the cubic term dramatically, which experimentalists could check.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports first-principles DFT+U calculations with spin-orbit coupling for Cu/WO3(001) heterostructures, focusing on a Type-I interface configuration. Three bands are identified near the Fermi level: α (W-derived 2DEG-like state), β (hybridized interface state), and γ (Cu quantum-well state). Fitting the momentum-resolved spin splitting of the β band to ΔE(k)=2α_R k + 2α̃_R k^3 yields a linear Rashba parameter α_R ≈ +0.49 eV·Å and a cubic Rashba parameter α̃_R ≈ -1.93 eV·Å^3 in the thick-film limit. The cubic term grows with Cu thickness (5 to 37 ML), which the authors attribute to cross-coupling between the Cu/WO3 and vacuum/Cu interfaces; this coupling is claimed to vanish for Cu thickness ≥33 ML, allowing extraction of the intrinsic α̃_R. The robustness of the effect is checked across interface stackings (Type-II, Type-III) and Cu orientations (110) and (111), and an O-terminated control identifies W-Cu hybridization as the key enabler.

Significance. If the headline value is correct, the paper predicts a giant cubic Rashba parameter in a light-metal/oxide interface, a previously unreported regime for Cu-based heterostructures, and it would support a design rule for spin-to-charge conversion devices. The qualitative claim that a large cubic Rashba term arises at the Cu/WO3 interface is supported by multiple internal consistency checks: the O-terminated control suppresses the effect, the bare WO2-terminated WO3 surface has negligible α̃_R, the spin texture shows the expected mixed tangential/radial components, and the cubic term persists across several geometries. The paper is transparent about exclusions and cross-checks, and the extraction method is standard rather than circular. The central weakness is that the specific 'intrinsic' value -1.93 eV·Å^3 rests on an extrapolation that is not demonstrated to have converged.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 5 and Table S2] The claim that 'for Cu thickness≥33 ML, the Cu/WO3 and vacuum/Cu interfaces effectively decouple' is not supported by the presented data. The magnitude of α̃_R is strictly increasing from 5 to 37 ML (0.48, 0.93, 1.39, 1.58, 1.72, then 1.93 at 37 ML) with no deceleration or plateau. The 33-ML point, which would be the first point in the proposed decoupled regime, is excluded because of QWS distortion, and Table S2 lists no fit for the 0–0.2 Å−1 window at 33 ML. The Quantum ESPRESSO cross-check is limited to 5 and 15 ML and differs from OpenMX by ~60% at 15 ML (−1.48 vs −0.93), so it does not validate the 37-ML magnitude. To support the headline intrinsic value, the authors should provide thicker films showing saturation, or at least a layer-resolved potential/band-alignment analysis demonstrating decoupling at 37 ML. Otherwise the −1.93 eV·Å^3 value should be presented as an extrapolated
  2. [Section III, thickness-dependence mechanism] The stated mechanism for the thickness dependence — enhanced electronic screening suppressing cross-coupling between the two interfaces — is not quantitatively consistent with the data. The β-band charge tail (Fig. S7) is already absent at 15 ML, yet |α̃_R| grows from 0.93 to 1.93 eV·Å^3 between 15 and 37 ML. Screening that removes the charge tail cannot explain continued growth over this range. The manuscript should provide additional evidence that the Cu/WO3 and vacuum/Cu interfaces remain coupled at 15–37 ML (e.g., compute the thickness dependence of the potential asymmetry or the interface-state penetration), or explicitly acknowledge that the asymptotic mechanism remains unidentified. This is load-bearing because the abstract's 'asymptotically grows with Cu thickness' language implies a controlled approach to a well-defined limit.
  3. [Section III, Tables S3–S4] The 'decoupled-limit' values for different interface configurations are quoted from different fitting windows, making the claimed robustness difficult to assess. For Type-I, the headline α̃_R ≈ −1.93 eV·Å^3 is from the 0.0–0.3 Å−1 window; for Type-II (Table S3) the 35/37-ML values are available only for 0.0–0.2 Å−1, and for Type-III the 39-ML value is −1.93 eV·Å^3 for 0.0–0.2 Å−1 but −1.27 eV·Å^3 for 0.1–0.3 Å−1 (Table S4). The main text quotes Type-III as ≈ −1.3 eV·Å^3 without noting this window sensitivity. The authors should either report all values in a consistent fitting window or explicitly justify why different windows are appropriate, and discuss the magnitude of window dependence in the text.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 5] Error bars are available in Table S2 but are not shown in Fig. 5. Adding them would help the reader judge the significance of the thickness-dependent trend, especially near the claimed saturation.
  2. [Section III, fitting procedure] The text states that the linear Rashba parameters are 'also consistent with values obtained using the standard formula α_R = 2E_R/k_R', but the comparison is not shown. Please provide these values in a table or in the Supplementary Information.
  3. [Table S2 and Fig. S5] The main text says that for the 33-ML case only a 'narrow k-interval' is excluded from the fit, but Table S2 reports no fit at all for the 0–0.2 Å−1 window at 33 ML. Please state explicitly that the 0–0.2 Å−1 window could not be fitted for this thickness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Rashba parameters are DFT-fit outputs; self-citations are motivational only; the decoupling-plateau caveat is a convergence/validity risk, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. All Rashba parameters are obtained by fitting the ab initio spin-split bands to ΔE(k)=2α_R k+2α̃_R k³ (Sec. III, Fig. 3), a standard extraction; no experimental Rashba value is inserted into the DFT. The two-parameter form is a symmetry-motivated ansatz (justified via C4v k·p results from [45], an external source), so the fit is a modeling assumption but not a definitional circularity. The self-citations ([15,16]) motivate the material and are used only for qualitative comparison ('our results qualitatively support the experimentally observed robust spin-current generation'), not as load-bearing evidence. The claimed 'intrinsic' −1.93 eV·Å3 is, however, not as strongly supported as the text implies: the manuscript itself states 'For the 33-ML case, a narrow k-interval where the β band is distorted by interaction with a Cu QWS is excluded from the fit', and Table S2 shows |α̃_R| still increasing from −1.72 (31 ML) to −1.93 (37 ML), with no 33-ML 0.0–0.2 Å⁻¹ value listed. This is a convergence/validation caveat about the 'decoupled ≥33 ML' design rule, not a circular step: the fitted value is not equal to any input by construction, and the paper provides independent checks (Quantum ESPRESSO at 5/15 ML; O-terminated control; bare WO3 surface). I therefore find no enumerated circularity; score 2 reflects only the minor motivational self-citation and the acknowledged data exclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard DFT approximations, a symmetry-derived two-parameter Rashba fit, and — most critically — an assumed thickness threshold for interface decoupling. The Rashba parameters themselves are fitting results, not independent inputs; the inherent uncertainty in the 'intrinsic' value is not captured by the reported statistical errors.

free parameters (5)
  • Hubbard U (W 5d) = 5.65 eV
    DFT+U parameter applied to W 5d orbitals, taken from prior literature (refs 23-25); it shifts W-derived bands and can affect the magnitude of the spin splitting.
  • linear Rashba parameter α_R = +0.30 to +0.49 eV·Å depending on thickness/configuration
    Extracted by fitting ΔE(k)=2α_R k + 2α̃_R k³ to spin-split DFT bands; it is a fitting result, but the headline number depends on this fit.
  • cubic Rashba parameter α̃_R = −1.93 eV·Å³ (37-ML Type-I); ranges −0.37 to −2.32 across thickness
    Same fit; the central 'giant' claim is this fitted value.
  • k-window for fitting = 0–0.3 Å⁻¹ (also 0–0.2, 0.1–0.3 in SI)
    Choice of fitting range affects the extracted parameters, especially for Type-II (sign changes); it is a hand-set degree of freedom.
  • Cu in-plane strain = +4.3% (001), −1.6%/+4.3% (110), −1.6%/+6.4% (111)
    In-plane lattice constrained to WO3; strain is imposed by construction. The O-terminated control shows strain alone does not create the effect, partially discounting this parameter, but it still defines the model system.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption GGA-PBE + DFT+U with U=5.65 eV on W 5d adequately describes the correlated W electronic structure.
    No hybrid functionals or GW are used; DFT+U parameters are from literature and the band structure is not tested against experiment for this interface.
  • domain assumption The cubic Pm-3m phase of WO3 (instead of the room-temperature monoclinic P21/n phase) represents the physical epitaxial interface.
    The paper justifies this by epitaxial stabilization and C4v symmetry, but the real monoclinic phase could modify interface states and Rashba splitting.
  • standard math The band splitting follows ΔE(k)=2α_R k + 2α̃_R k³ (same effective mass for both spin branches) over 0–0.3 Å⁻¹.
    Standard C4v Rashba form cited from group theory (ref 45); assumes no other band-structure terms in the fitting window.
  • domain assumption Hydrogen passivation of the WO3/vacuum surface and the vacuum gap of 10 Å do not affect the interface states.
    Passivation is standard; an asymmetric slab could introduce spurious fields, but the paper uses symmetric vacuum on both sides.
  • ad hoc to paper At ≥33 ML Cu the vacuum/Cu and Cu/WO3 interfaces become effectively decoupled, so the fitted α̃_R of the β state is the intrinsic interface value.
    This is the load-bearing extrapolation; the paper assumes the trend from 5 to 37 ML saturates at ~−1.9, but no asymptotic plateau is demonstrated.
  • ad hoc to paper The β interface state is not significantly distorted by Cu QWS except at the disclosed thicknesses/windows.
    The paper excludes data where QWS interact; this keeps fits clean but relies on the assignment of the β character.
  • domain assumption The bare WO2-terminated WO3 surface state and the Cu/vacuum surface state can be used as separate baselines to decompose the interface effect.
    The linear term at the interface matches the bare WO3 surface, so the paper concludes Cu adds the cubic part; this decomposition assumes additivity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Orbital Hybridization Induces Giant Cubic Rashba Effect at Cu/WO$_{3}$ Interface." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C66XEIXN

@misc{pith2026260714069,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Orbital Hybridization Induces Giant Cubic Rashba Effect at Cu/WO$_3$ Interface},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C66XEIXN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14069}
}
abstract

Harnessing Rashba spin-orbit interaction and related spintronic functionalities has traditionally relied on metallic surfaces or interfaces containing elemental heavy metals. Here, using first-principles calculations and Cu(001)/WO$_3$(001) as a model heterostructure, we show that interfacing a light metal, Cu, with a band insulator, WO$_3$, yields an interface state that exhibits a robust Rashba spin splitting arising from the interplay between linear and cubic Rashba effects. The spin splitting is driven by the strong spin-orbit coupling of W atoms and enabled by W-Cu orbital hybridization at the interface. The cubic Rashba contribution asymptotically grows with Cu thickness and can be explained in terms of cross-coupling between the vacuum/Cu and Cu/WO$_3$ interfaces. This interfacial cross-coupling, however, diminishes at larger Cu thicknesses, allowing us to extract the intrinsic cubic Rashba parameter, which has a giant value of approximately -1.93 eV $\r{A}^3$. In contrast, the linear Rashba parameter is only weakly affected by this cross-coupling and varies from approximately 0.30 to 0.49 eV \r{A}. We further show that sizable linear and cubic Rashba effects persist across several interface geometries and Cu surface orientations, including (110) and (111). Our work identifies the Cu/WO$_3$ interface as a novel light-metal/heavy-element-based oxide platform for exploring the rich spectrum of Rashba physics, including linear and nonlinear spin-orbit phenomena.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14069 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows the Type-I slab model consisting of 15 monolayers (ML) thick Cu(001) and a 4 unit-cells￾thick WO3(001) layer. The interfacial separation is op￾timized to 2.70 ˚A (see Supplementary Fig. S2 [29]). We passivated the WO3/vacuum interface with hydro￾gen to avoid unwanted electronic states. A vacuum re￾gion of 20 ˚A (10 ˚A on each side) was introduced along the c-axis to eliminate spurious interactions between pe￾r… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Electronic band structure and spin textures of the WO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Orbital-resolved band structures. (a)–(e) Projections from the W ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Thickness dependence of the linear (black triangles) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a),(b) Unfolded band structures of Cu(110)/WO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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 ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.91.035004 journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 91 ,\ pages 035004 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.91.035004 2019

  2. [2]

    Manipatruni , author D

    author author S. Manipatruni , author D. E. \ Nikonov , author C.-C. \ Lin , author T. A. \ Gosavi , author H. Liu , author B. Prasad , author Y.-L. \ Huang , author E. Bonturim , author R. Ramesh ,\ and\ author I. A. \ Young ,\ https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0770-2 journal journal Nature \ volume 565 ,\ pages 35 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0770-2 2019

  3. [3]

    u nzenberg , author M. Kl \

    author author T. Seifert , author S. Jaiswal , author U. Martens , author J. Hannegan , author L. Braun , author P. Maldonado , author F. Freimuth , author A. Kronenberg , author J. Henrizi , author I. Radu , author E. Beaurepaire , author Y. Mokrousov , author P. M. \ Oppeneer , author M. Jourdan , author G. Jakob , author D. Turchinovich , author L. M. ...

    work page doi:10.1038/nphoton.2016 2016

  4. [4]

    Ju , author Y

    author author W. Ju , author Y. Xu , author T. Li , author M. Li , author K. Tian , author J. Chen ,\ and\ author H. Li ,\ https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2022.153528 journal journal Appl. Surf. Sci. \ volume 595 ,\ pages 153528 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    author author E. I. \ Rashba ,\ @noop journal journal Sov. Phys. Solid State \ volume 2 ,\ pages 1109 ( year 1960 ) NoStop

    1960

  6. [6]

    Wu , author K

    author author Y. Wu , author K. Garello , author W. Kim , author M. Gupta , author M. Perumkunnil , author V. Kateel , author S. Couet , author R. Carpenter , author S. Rao , author S. Van Beek , author K. Vudya Sethu , author F. Yasin , author D. Crotti ,\ and\ author G. Kar ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.15.064015 journal journal Phys. Rev. A...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.15.064015 2021

  7. [7]

    Bihlmayer , author P

    author author G. Bihlmayer , author P. No \"e l , author D. V. \ Vyalikh , author E. V. \ Chulkov ,\ and\ author A. Manchon ,\ https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-022-00490-y journal journal Nat. Rev. Phys. \ volume 4 ,\ pages 642 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-022-00490-y 2022

  8. [8]

    Ohtomo \ and\ author H

    author author A. Ohtomo \ and\ author H. Y. \ Hwang ,\ https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02308 journal journal Nature \ volume 427 ,\ pages 423 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1038/nature02308 2004

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Lesne , author Y

    author author E. Lesne , author Y. Fu , author S. Oyarzun , author J. C. \ Rojas-S \'a nchez , author D. C. \ Vaz , author H. Naganuma , author G. Sicoli , author J.-P. \ Attan \'e , author M. Jamet , author E. Jacquet , author J.-M. \ George , author A. Barth \'e l \'e my , a...

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    author author A. H. \ Al-Tawhid , author R. Sun , author A. H. \ Comstock , author D. P. \ Kumah , author D. Sun ,\ and\ author K. Ahadi ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0247001 journal journal Appl. Phys. Lett. \ volume 126 ,\ pages 091601 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    Bordoloi , author A

    author author A. Bordoloi , author A. C. \ Garcia-Castro , author Z. Romestan , author A. H. \ Romero ,\ and\ author S. Singh ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0212170 journal journal J. Appl. Phys. \ volume 135 ,\ pages 220901 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    uttler , author E. E. \ Krasovskii , author S. Schulz , author A. Generalov , author K. Kliemt , author A. Kraiker , author C. Krellner , author K. Kummer , author S. Danzenb\

    author author D. Y. \ Usachov , author I. A. \ Nechaev , author G. Poelchen , author M. G\"uttler , author E. E. \ Krasovskii , author S. Schulz , author A. Generalov , author K. Kliemt , author A. Kraiker , author C. Krellner , author K. Kummer , author S. Danzenb\"acher , au...

    2020

  5. [13]

    Tsai , author S

    author author H. Tsai , author S. Karube , author K. Kondou , author N. Yamaguchi , author F. Ishii ,\ and\ author Y. Otani ,\ https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23787-4 journal journal Sci. Rep. \ volume 8 ,\ pages 5564 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Sugimoto , author J

    author author S. Sugimoto , author J. Uzuhashi , author S. Isogami , author T. Ohkubo , author Y. K. \ Takahashi , author S. Kasai ,\ and\ author K. Hono ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.3.104410 journal journal Phys. Rev. Mater. \ volume 3 ,\ pages 104410 ( year 20...

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Das , author S

    author author S. Das , author S. Sugimoto , author V. K. \ Kushwaha , author Y. Kozuka ,\ and\ author S. Kasai ,\ journal journal APL Mater. \ volume 11 ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0142695 10.1063/5.0142695 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Itoh , author Y

    author author T. Itoh , author Y. Kozuka , author T. Hirai ,\ and\ author K.-i. \ Uchida ,\ https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202409557 journal journal Adv. Funct. Mater. \ volume 34 ,\ pages 2409557 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Djani , author A

    author author H. Djani , author A. C. \ Garcia-Castro , author W.-Y. \ Tong , author P. Barone , author E. Bousquet , author S. Picozzi ,\ and\ author P. Ghosez ,\ https://doi.org/10.1038/s41535-019-0190-z journal journal npj Quantum Mater. \ volume 4 ,\ pages 51 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Jeong , author J

    author author J. Jeong , author J. Mun , author S. Das , author J. Kim , author J. R. \ Kim , author W. Peng , author M. Kim ,\ and\ author T. W. \ Noh ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/acsaelm.1c00005 journal journal ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. \ volume 3 ,\ pages 1023 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Ozaki ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.67.155108 journal journal Phys

    author author T. Ozaki ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.67.155108 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 67 ,\ pages 155108 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003 doi

  12. [20]

    Ozaki \ and\ author H

    author author T. Ozaki \ and\ author H. Kino ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.69.195113 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 69 ,\ pages 195113 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004 doi

  13. [21]

    author author D. R. \ Hamann ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.88.085117 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 88 ,\ pages 085117 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    author author J. P. \ Perdew , author K. Burke ,\ and\ author M. Ernzerhof ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 77 ,\ pages 3865 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

    1996 doi

  15. [23]

    author author M. J. \ Han , author T. Ozaki ,\ and\ author J. Yu ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.73.045110 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 73 ,\ pages 045110 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    Ryee \ and\ author M

    author author S. Ryee \ and\ author M. J. \ Han ,\ https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-648X/aac79c journal journal J. Phys.:Condens. Matter \ volume 30 ,\ pages 275802 ( year 2018 a ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    Ryee \ and\ author M

    author author S. Ryee \ and\ author M. J. \ Han ,\ https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27731-4 journal journal Sci. Rep. \ volume 8 ,\ pages 9559 ( year 2018 b ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    author author M. E. \ Straumanis \ and\ author L. S. \ Yu ,\ https://doi.org/10.1107/S0567739469001549 journal journal Acta Crystallogr. A \ volume 25 ,\ pages 676 ( year 1969 ) NoStop

    1969 doi

  19. [27]

    author author W. A. \ Crichton , author P. Bouvier ,\ and\ author A. Grzechnik ,\ https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-5408(02)01030-9 journal journal Mater. Res. Bull. \ volume 38 ,\ pages 289 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003 doi

  20. [28]

    Mazzola , author H

    author author F. Mazzola , author H. Hassani , author D. Amoroso , author S. K. \ Chaluvadi , author J. Fujii , author V. Polewczyk , author P. Rajak , author M. Koegler , author R. Ciancio , author B. Partoens , author G. Rossi , author I. Vobornik , author P. Ghosez ,\ and\ ...

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    The Supplemental Material also contains Refs

    @noop title See the Supplementary Information for data on various interface configurations and orientations, real-space charge analysis, orbital-resolved analysis, and thickness-dependent Rashba parameters. The Supplemental Material also contains Refs. suppl-1,cu/cu3n . Stop

  22. [30]

    Liu , author J

    author author W. Liu , author J. C. \ Li , author W. T. \ Zheng ,\ and\ author Q. Jiang ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.73.205421 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 73 ,\ pages 205421 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    author author A. H. \ MacDonald \ and\ author S. H. \ Vosko ,\ https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3719/12/15/007 journal journal J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. \ volume 12 ,\ pages 2977 ( year 1979 ) NoStop

    1979 doi

  24. [32]

    Theurich \ and\ author N

    author author G. Theurich \ and\ author N. A. \ Hill ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.64.073106 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 64 ,\ pages 073106 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    2001 doi

  25. [33]

    author author C. V. \ Ramana , author S. Utsunomiya , author R. C. \ Ewing , author C. M. \ Julien ,\ and\ author U. Becker ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/jp056664i journal journal J. Phys. Chem. B \ volume 110 ,\ pages 10430 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006 doi

  26. [34]

    Mattoni , author A

    author author G. Mattoni , author A. Filippetti , author N. Manca , author P. Zubko ,\ and\ author A. D. \ Caviglia ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.2.053402 journal journal Phys. Rev. Mater. \ volume 2 ,\ pages 053402 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    Wang , author C

    author author F. Wang , author C. Di Valentin ,\ and\ author G. Pacchioni ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/jp201057m journal journal J. Phys. Chem. C \ volume 115 ,\ pages 8345 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    Zhang , author X

    author author X. Zhang , author X. Ren , author Z. Xiao ,\ and\ author Y. Huang ,\ https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2019.102670 journal journal Results Phys. \ volume 15 ,\ pages 102670 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  29. [37]

    author author K. V. \ Shanavas ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.045108 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 93 ,\ pages 045108 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    Nakamura , author T

    author author H. Nakamura , author T. Koga ,\ and\ author T. Kimura ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.206601 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 108 ,\ pages 206601 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    Giannozzi et al

    author author P. Giannozzi et al. ,\ https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/21/39/395502 journal journal J. Phys.:Condens. Matter \ volume 21 ,\ pages 395502 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009 doi

  32. [40]

    Giannozzi et al

    author author P. Giannozzi et al. ,\ https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-648X/aa8f79 journal journal J. Phys.:Condens. Matter \ volume 29 ,\ pages 465901 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    Geisler ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.108.224502 journal journal Phys

    author author B. Geisler ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.108.224502 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 108 ,\ pages 224502 ( year 2023 a ) NoStop

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    Zhong , author A

    author author Z. Zhong , author A. T\'oth ,\ and\ author K. Held ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.87.161102 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 87 ,\ pages 161102 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    Ishida ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.235422 journal journal Phys

    author author H. Ishida ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.235422 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 90 ,\ pages 235422 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    Yaji , author A

    author author K. Yaji , author A. Harasawa , author K. Kuroda , author R. Li , author B. Yan , author F. Komori ,\ and\ author S. Shin ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.041404 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 98 ,\ pages 041404 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    Mera Acosta , author L

    author author C. Mera Acosta , author L. Yuan , author G. M. \ Dalpian ,\ and\ author A. Zunger ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.104.104408 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 104 ,\ pages 104408 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    Wicaksono , author J.-Y

    author author Y. Wicaksono , author J.-Y. \ You , author B. Gu , author A. Evseev , author I. Piyanzina , author K. Kusakabe , author S. Yunoki ,\ and\ author S. Maekawa ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.110.L220408 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 110 ,\ pages L220408 ...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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