Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 40 references

Spin Hall Magnetoresistance in Metallic Bilayers with In-plane Magnetized Ferromagnets

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An extended drift-diffusion model, with anisotropic magnetoresistance explicitly included in the ferromagnetic layer, separates spin Hall magnetoresistance from AMR in four metallic bilayers and yields separate spin Hall and AMR angles.

desk verdict Worthwhile model extension, but the 'precise SMR/AMR separation' claim needs error bars and a resolution of cross-series parameter discrepancies. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03906 v1 pith:CDGBLJK2 submitted 2019-08-11 physics.app-ph

{L}ukasz Karwacki , Krzysztof Grochot , Stanis{l}aw {L}azarski , Witold Skowroński , Jaros{l}aw Kanak , Wies{l}aw Powroźnik , Józef Barnaś , Feliks Stobiecki
show 1 more author
Tomasz Stobiecki
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.app-ph
keywords spinHallmagnetoresistanceanisotropicdrift-diffusionmodelangleAMRheavy-metal/ferromagnetbilayersW/CoFeBPt/Co
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 Hall magnetoresistance (SMR) and anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR) both contribute when a current flows in a heavy-metal/ferromagnet bilayer, and standard SMR-only analyses risk misreading one as the other. This paper shows that putting AMR (and anomalous Hall) terms directly into the spin drift-diffusion equations for the ferromagnetic layer produces a magnetoresistance formula whose angle and thickness dependence separates the two effects. Fitted to resistance measurements on W/Co20Fe60B20, W/Co, Co20Fe60B20/Pt, and Co/Pt bilayers, the model yields separate estimates of the spin Hall angle and the AMR angle for each system. The separation matters for magnetic field sensors and for any experiment that extracts spin transport parameters from magnetoresistance data.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is an extended spin drift-diffusion model for the H/F bilayer. Charge and spin currents in the heavy metal are governed by the spin Hall effect, while in the ferromagnet the current equations include $\theta_{AMR}$ and $\theta_{AH}$ terms alongside spin polarization $\beta$; the two layers are connected by an interface boundary condition written in terms of spin-mixing conductances. Solving these equations with open boundary conditions yields the conductivity tensor whose anisotropy, inserted into $MR = (\rho_{xx}(\hat m \parallel \hat e_x)-\rho_{xx}(\hat m \parallel \hat e_y))/\rho_{xx}(\hat m \parallel \hat e_x)$, is the measured quantity. The mechanism that does the work is the explicit separation $\sigma_x = \sigma_x^{SH}+\sigma_x^{AMR}$ and $\sigma_y = \sigma_y^{SH}+\sigma_y^{AH}$, which lets the angular and thickness dependence of resistance single out each contribution.

What would settle it

Measure the AMR of single ferromagnetic layers (with no heavy metal) across the same thickness range used in the bilayer fits; if the single-layer $\theta_{AMR}$ varies with thickness while the bilayer model treats it as constant, the SMR/AMR separation is misattributing the thickness trend. A second check would be to fit the bilayer data with $\theta_{AMR}(t_F)$ as a free function and compare residuals.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the measured magnetoresistance of heavy-metal/ferromagnet bilayers can be decomposed into a spin Hall part and an AMR part by solving coupled spin and charge diffusion equations in both layers with AMR terms included in the ferromagnet. The central result is the decomposition $MR \approx (\sigma_y-\sigma_x)/\sigma_0$, where $\sigma_x$ contains $\sigma_x^{SH}+\sigma_x^{AMR}$ and $\sigma_y$ contains spin Hall and anomalous Hall contributions; setting $\theta_{AMR}\to 0$ and $\theta_{AH}\to 0$ recovers the earlier SMR-only model. For the four studied bilayers, the fits give $|\theta_{SH}|$ roughly 0.09–0.47 and $\theta_{AMR}$ roughly 0.13–2.4%, with W-based samples dominated by SMR and Pt-based samples dominated by AMR. The paper also reports negative SMR in Co-based systems, where large AMR would otherwise be mistaken for spin Hall physics.

Load-bearing premise

The fitting assumes the spin Hall angle and the AMR angle do not change with layer thickness, although the paper itself notes this may overestimate parameters for very thin ferromagnetic layers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In Pt-based bilayers, where the spin Hall angle is small, the measured magnetoresistance is dominated by AMR, so SMR-only fits would overestimate spin Hall transport parameters.
  • In Co-based bilayers, large AMR can mask or reverse the apparent SMR signal; the model identifies a negative SMR contribution that only appears once AMR is removed.
  • The model provides separate $\theta_{SH}$ and $\theta_{AMR}$ values for W/CoFeB, W/Co, CoFeB/Pt, and Co/Pt, which can be used to interpret other magnetoresistance-based spin transport experiments.
  • The decomposed magnetoresistance is directly relevant to optimizing magnetic stray field sensors, where the AMR background must be separated from the SMR response.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If thin-film AMR is genuinely thickness dependent, as suggested by the paper's own caveat, then the constant-$\theta_{AMR}$ fit likely underestimates AMR in thick layers and overestimates it in very thin ones; this could be tested by capping single ferromagnetic layers with an insulating spacer instead of a heavy metal.
  • The anomalous Hall terms, which are negligible for the in-plane magnetized systems studied here, should become visible in out-of-plane magnetized bilayers or in ferromagnets with larger anomalous Hall angles, where the same framework predicts an extra $\sigma_y^{AH}$ contribution to the transverse conductivity.
  • Because the model gives closed-form expressions for the conductivity tensor, one could extract both angles from a single angle-resolved magnetoresistance measurement rather than a full thickness series, speeding up materials screening.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the theory of spin Hall magnetoresistance (SMR) in heavy-metal/ferromagnetic-metal bilayers by explicitly including anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR) and the anomalous Hall effect (AHE) in the spin drift-diffusion equations for the ferromagnet. The authors derive closed-form expressions for the magnetoresistance, define SMR by setting the AMR and AHE angles to zero in Eq. (22), and fit the model to resistance measurements on W/Co20Fe60B20, W/Co, Co20Fe60B20/Pt, and Co/Pt bilayers with varied heavy-metal or ferromagnetic thickness. From these fits they extract spin Hall angles, AMR angles, spin-mixing conductances, and spin diffusion lengths, and conclude that the approach allows precise determination of the SMR and AMR contributions to the magnetoresistance.

Significance. If valid, the model would provide a useful framework for separating SMR from AMR in metallic ferromagnet/heavy-metal bilayers, with relevance for magnetoresistance-based spin-transport metrology and for optimizing magnetic stray-field sensors. The derivation in Section II is a genuine extension of earlier SMR theory and the paper compares its model with the simplified Kim et al. model, which is a strength. However, the central quantitative claim of 'precise determination' is currently not supported because the fitted parameters are not accompanied by uncertainties and, more seriously, fits to complementary thickness series of the same nominal bilayers yield mutually inconsistent values. The paper would need a substantially more rigorous fitting and validation procedure before the claimed precision can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV, Table II] The fitted parameters are reported without uncertainties, confidence intervals, or goodness-of-fit measures, yet the abstract and Section IV claim 'precise determination' of the SMR and AMR contributions. This is especially problematic because the two complementary series for the same nominal bilayers give inconsistent values: for W/Co, |θSH| = 0.34 in W3 versus 0.47 in W4 and θAMR = 1.1% versus 0.5%; for Co/Pt, |θSH| = 0.09 in P3 versus 0.28 in P4 and θAMR = 2.4% versus 0.7%; the fitted Gr also differs by an order of magnitude between the two series. Without uncertainty estimates or a demonstration that these differences are within expected scatter, the claim of precise determination is not established.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (22); Sec. IV] The decomposition into SMR and AMR is obtained by setting θAMR = 0 and θAH = 0 in the fitted model, so the separated contributions are computed from the same fitted parameters that reproduce the total magnetoresistance. There is no independent measurement of θAMR or θSH against which the separation is validated. Because the functional forms of the SMR and AMR terms are not orthogonal in general, the decomposition could be an artifact of the model rather than a physical separation. The authors should validate the procedure, for example by comparing extracted θAMR with values from single-layer AMR measurements or by testing whether the separation is stable under small perturbations of the fitting constraints.
  3. [Sec. IV, thickness independence assumption] The paper states that 'we assume θAMR and θSH to be independent of layer thickness, which may result in overestimated parameters for very thin ferromagnetic layers.' This assumption is load-bearing: if θAMR varies with ferromagnet thickness, as is known for very thin layers, the fitted separation between SMR and AMR will be systematically wrong, and the differences between the tF and tH series in Table II may reflect exactly such thickness dependence. The authors should either justify the assumption quantitatively (e.g., by comparing fits with and without thickness-dependent angles) or restrict the conclusions to thickness ranges where the assumption is supported by the data.
  4. [Sec. II and Sec. IV, model simplifications] The model uses several simplifying assumptions whose quantitative impact on the fitted parameters is not assessed: transparent interfaces (GF → ∞), negligible imaginary spin-mixing conductance (Gi = 0), fixed spin polarization β = 0.3, and neglect of AHE. While each assumption is plausible, the fitted values of θSH, θAMR, and Gr may be sensitive to them, especially the transparent-interface and β values. A sensitivity analysis, at least for the most influential parameters, would substantially strengthen the paper's central claim of precise determination.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The text contains several typographical errors, including 'in-p lane' in the title header and 'meansurements' in the Introduction; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 captions] The figure captions are difficult to parse because they use abbreviations like 'H' and 'F' without fully defining them in the caption; consider spelling out 'heavy metal' and 'ferromagnet' at first use.
  3. [References] Reference [35] has a typographical extra comma after 'Ralph,' and the Supplemental Material reference [39] is cited as 'URL will be inserted by publisher'; the authors should provide the actual URL or DOI.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SMR/AMR decomposition is a fitted model interpretation rather than a parameter-free derivation, and the paper's self-citations are methodological, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper derives a drift-diffusion model (Sec. II) in which AMR and AHE appear explicitly (Eqs. 6-7), then fits the resulting magnetoresistance expression (Eqs. 20-21) to measured thickness-dependent MR data (Fig. 3), reporting fitted θSH and θAMR values in Table II. Eq. (22) defines SMR as the MR with θAMR and θAH set to zero; this is a model-based decomposition, not a circular derivation, because the fitted parameters are not equal by construction to the total MR data — they are estimated from it, and the same parameters are then used to discuss relative SMR/AMR strengths. No step predicts a quantity from a parameter fitted to that same quantity. The cited prior work [4] is external (Kim et al.), and self-citations [36,38] are used only for deposition and structural characterization details, not to justify the central separation. The admitted thickness-independence assumption in Sec. IV ('we assume θAMR and θSH to be independent of layer thickness, which may result in overestimated parameters for very thin ferromagnetic layers') and the large differences between tH- and tF-series fits in Table II are genuine concerns about accuracy and model validity, but they are correctness risks, not circularity: an invalid or oversimplified model does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. There is no self-referential uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled via citation, and no renaming of a known result as a new one. The central derivation is self-contained and benchmarked against measured resistances, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The model relies on standard spin transport theory and several simplifying assumptions. The main cost is the five fitted parameters per sample: the decomposition of magnetoresistance into SMR and AMR is only as reliable as these fits.

free parameters (5)
  • spin Hall angle θSH = 0.09 to 0.47, per sample (Table II)
    Fitted to the magnetoresistance data for each bilayer; not independently measured in this paper.
  • AMR angle θAMR = 0.13% to 2.4%, per sample (Table II)
    Fitted; the model's separation of SMR and AMR depends on this value.
  • spin-mixing conductance Gr = 10^11 to 10^14 Ω^-1 m^-2, per sample (Table II)
    Fitted; assumed thickness-independent, which is known to fail for thin layers.
  • heavy-metal spin diffusion length λH = 1.3 nm (W), 2.2 nm (Pt)
    Listed in Table II as used in the fits; not measured independently in this work.
  • ferromagnet spin diffusion length λF = 1 to 5 nm, per sample (Table II)
    Listed in Table II as used in the fits; not measured independently in this work.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard drift-diffusion equations for charge and spin transport in the heavy metal and ferromagnet.
    Used to derive Eqs. (3)-(7) without derivation from microscopic theory.
  • domain assumption Interfacial spin current described by the spin-mixing conductance model of Brataas et al. (ref. 37).
    Adopted in Eq. (9) and used for boundary conditions (10).
  • domain assumption Linear response; unidirectional SMR and Rashba-Edelstein interface effects are neglected.
    Stated in Section II after Eq. (7).
  • domain assumption Transparent contacts (GF to infinity) and negligible imaginary mixing conductance Gi.
    Stated in Section IV; the authors note fitted parameters are upper limits.
  • ad hoc to paper Spin polarization β = 0.3 for both Co and Co20Fe60B20.
    Assumed in Section IV without direct measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin Hall Magnetoresistance in Metallic Bilayers with In-plane Magnetized Ferromagnets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CDGBLJK2

@misc{pith2026190803906,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin Hall Magnetoresistance in Metallic Bilayers with In-plane Magnetized Ferromagnets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CDGBLJK2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03906}
}
abstract

We revisit the theory and experiment on spin Hall magnetoresistance (SMR) in bilayers consisting of a heavy metal (H) coupled to in-plane magnetized ferromagnetic metal (F), and determine contributions to the magnetoresistance due to SMR and anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR) in four different bilayer systems: W/$\text{Co}_{20}\text{Fe}_{60}\text{B}_{20}$, W/Co, $\text{Co}_{20}\text{Fe}_{60}\text{B}_{20}$/Pt, and Co/Pt. To do this, the AMR is explicitly included in the diffusion transport equations in the ferromagnet. The results allow precise determination of different contributions to the magnetoresistance, which can play an important role in optimizing prospective magnetic stray field sensors. They also may be useful in the determination of spin transport properties of metallic magnetic heterostructures in other experiments based on magnetoresistance measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03906 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic representation of the system considered [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. , resistances of bilayers with amorphous ferromag￾net Co20Fe60B20 are about one order higher than these with polycrystalline Co. The same results were obtained using both techniques. The thickness-dependent resis￾tivity of individual layers was determined by method described in Ref. [6], and by a parallel resistors model. For more details on resistivity measurements we refer the reader to Supplemental Material [39].… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Magnetoresistance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Althammer, S

    M. Althammer, S. Meyer, H. Nakayama, M. Schreier, S. Altmannshofer, M. Weiler, H. Huebl, S. Geprägs, M. Opel, R. Gross, D. Meier, C. Klewe, T. Kuschel, J.-M. Schmalhorst, G. Reiss, L. Shen, A. Gupta, Y.-T. Chen, G. E. W. Bauer, E. Saitoh, and S. T. B. Goennen- wein, Quantitative study of the spin Hall magnetoresis- tance in ferromagnetic insulator/normal ...

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Nakayama, M

    H. Nakayama, M. Althammer, Y.-T. Chen, K. Uchida, Y. Kajiwara, D. Kikuchi, T. Ohtani, S. Geprägs, M. Opel, S. Takahashi, R. Gross, G. E. W. Bauer, S. T. B. Goennenwein, and E. Saitoh, Spin Hall magne- toresistance induced by a nonequilibrium proximity ef- fect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 206601 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Y.-T. Chen, S. Takahashi, H. Nakayama, M. Al- thammer, S. T. B. Goennenwein, E. Saitoh, and G. E. W. Bauer, Theory of spin Hall magnetoresis- tance, Phys. Rev. B 87, 144411 (2013) ; Theory of spin Hall magnetoresistance (SMR) and related phenomena, J. Phys.: Condens. Matt. 28, 103004 (2016)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    J. Kim, P. Sheng, S. Takahashi, S. Mitani, and M. Hayashi, Spin Hall magnetoresistance in metallic bi- layers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 097201 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    J.-G. Choi, J. W. Lee, and B.-G. Park, Spin Hall magne- toresistance in heavy-metal/metallic-ferromagnet multi - layer structures, Phys. Rev. B 96, 174412 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Kawaguchi, D

    M. Kawaguchi, D. Towa, Y. C. Lau, S. Takahashi, and M. Hayashi, Anomalous spin Hall magnetoresistance in Pt/Co bilayers, Appl. Phys. Lett. 112, 202405 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Y. Lv, J. Kally, D. Zhang, J. S. Lee, M. Ja- mali, N. Samarth, and J.-P. Wang, Unidirectional spin-hall and rashba-edelstein magnetoresistance in topological insulator-ferromagnet layer heterostructur es, Nature Communications 9, 111 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Narayanapillai, G

    K. Narayanapillai, G. Go, R. Ramaswamy, K. Gopinad- han, D. Go, H.-W. Lee, T. Venkatesan, K.-J. Lee, and H. Yang, Interfacial rashba magnetoresistance of the two- dimensional electron gas at the LaAlO3 / SrTiO3 inter- face, Physical Review B 96, 064401 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    J. E. Hirsch, Spin Hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1834 (1999)

    1999

  2. [10]

    M. I. Dyakonov, Magnetoresistance due to edge spin ac- cumulation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 126601 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    S. Y. Huang, X. Fan, D. Qu, Y. P. Chen, W. G. Wang, J. Wu, T. Y. Chen, J. Q. Xiao, and C. L. Chien, Transport magnetic proximity effects in platinum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 107204 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    Sinova, S

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

    2015

  5. [13]

    Y. Liu, B. Zhou, and J.-G. Zhu, Field-free mag- netization switching by utilizing the spin hall ef- fect and interlayer exchange coupling of iridium, 7 Scientific Reports 9, 325 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    A. Kobs, S. Heße, W. Kreuzpaintner, G. Winkler, D. Lott, P. Weinberger, A. Schreyer, and H. P. Oepen, Anisotropic interface magnetoresistance in Pt/Co/Pt sandwiches, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 217207 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    C.-F. Pai, Y. Ou, L. H. Vilela-Leão, D. C. Ralph, and R. A. Buhrman, Dependence of the efficiency of spin Hall torque on the transparency of Pt/ferromagnetic layer in- terfaces, Phys. Rev. B 92, 064426 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Zhang, W

    W. Zhang, W. Han, X. Jiang, S.-H. Yang, and S. S. P. Parkin, Role of transparency of platinum–ferromagnet interfaces in determining the intrinsic magnitude of the spin Hall effect, Nat. Phys. 11, 496 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    S. S.-L. Zhang, G. Vignale, and S. Zhang, Anisotropic magnetoresistance driven by surface spin-orbit scatter- ing, Phys. Rev. B 92, 024412 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Tokaç, M

    M. Tokaç, M. Wang, S. Jaiswal, A. W. Rushforth, B. L. Gallagher, D. Atkinson, and A. T. Hindmarch, Interfacial contribution to thickness dependent in-plane anisotropic magnetoresistance, AIP Advances 5, 127108 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Tokaç, S

    M. Tokaç, S. A. Bunyaev, G. N. Kakazei, D. S. Schmool, D. Atkinson, and A. T. Hindmarch, Interfacial structure dependent spin mixing conductance in cobalt thin films, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 056601 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    L. J. Zhu, D. C. Ralph, and R. A. Buhrman, Irrelevance of magnetic proximity effect to spin- orbit torques in heavy-metal/ferromagnet bilayers, Phys. Rev. B 98, 134406 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    V. P. Amin, J. Zemen, and M. D. Stiles, Interface-generated spin currents, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 136805 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    C. O. A vci, K. Garello, A. Ghosh, M. Gabureac, S. F. Alvarado, and P. Gambardella, Unidirectional spin Hall magnetoresistance in ferromagnet/normal metal bilayers, Nat. Phys. 11, 570 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    C. O. A vci, K. Garello, J. Mendil, A. Ghosh, N. Blasakis, M. Gabureac, M. Trassin, M. Fiebig, and P. Gambardella, Magnetoresistance of heavy and light metal/ferromagnet bilayers, Appl. Phys. Lett. 107, 192405 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    S. S.-L. Zhang and G. Vignale, Theory of unidirectional spin Hall magnetoresistance in heavy-metal/ferromagnetic-metal bilayers, Phys. Rev. B 94, 140411(R) (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    C. O. A vci, J. Mendil, G. S. D. Beach, and P. Gambardella, Origins of the unidirectional spin Hall magnetoresistance in metallic bilayers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 087207 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Taniguchi, J

    T. Taniguchi, J. Grollier, and M. D. Stiles, Spin-transfer torques generated by the anoma- lous Hall effect and anisotropic magnetoresistance, Phys. Rev. Appl. 3, 044001 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Taniguchi, Magnetoresistance generated from charge-spin conversion by anomalous Hall effect in metallic ferromagnetic/nonmagnetic bilayers, Phys

    T. Taniguchi, Magnetoresistance generated from charge-spin conversion by anomalous Hall effect in metallic ferromagnetic/nonmagnetic bilayers, Phys. Rev. B 94, 174440 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Y. Yang, Z. Luo, H. Wu, Y. Xu, R. W. Li, S. J. Penny- cook, S. Zhang, and Y. Wu, Anomalous Hall magnetore- sistance in a ferromagnet, Nat. Commun. 9, 2255 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Jan, Galvamomagnetic and thermomagnetic effects in metals, in Solid State Physics (Elsevier, 1957) pp

    J.-P. Jan, Galvamomagnetic and thermomagnetic effects in metals, in Solid State Physics (Elsevier, 1957) pp. 1– 96

    1957

  22. [30]

    McGuire and R

    T. McGuire and R. Potter, Anisotropic mag- netoresistance in ferromagnetic 3d alloys, IEEE Trans. Magn. 11, 1018 (1975)

    1975

  23. [31]

    Bass and W

    J. Bass and W. P. Pratt, Spin-diffusion lengths in metals and alloys, and spin-flipping at metal/metal interfaces: an experimentalist’s critical review, J. Phys.: Condens. Mat. 19, 183201 (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    P. S. Bechthold, Galvanomagnetic trans- port: from Hall effect to AMR, in Spintronics – From GMR to Quantum Information , edited by S. Blügel, D. Bürgler, M. Morgenstern, C. M. Schneider, and R. Waser, Institute of Solid State Re- search, Forschungszentrum Jülich (Forschungszen...

    2009

  25. [33]

    Nagaosa, J

    N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. Mac- Donald, and N. P. Ong, Anomalous Hall effect, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1539 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Iihama, T

    S. Iihama, T. Taniguchi, K. Yakushiji, A. Fukushima, Y. Shiota, S. Tsunegi, R. Hiramatsu, S. Yuasa, Y. Suzuki, and H. Kubota, Spin-transfer torque induced by the spin anomalous hall effect, Nature Electronics 1, 120 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    L. Liu, T. Moriyama, D. C. Ralph, , and R. A. Buhrman, Spin-torque ferromagnetic resonance induced by the spin Hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 036601 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    Skowroński, Ł

    W. Skowroński, Ł. Karwacki, S. Ziętek, J. Kanak, S. Łazarski, K. Grochot, T. Stobiecki, P. Kuświk, F. Stobiecki, and J. Barnaś, Determination of spin Hall angle in heavy-metal/Co-Fe-B-based heterostructures with interfacial spin-orbit fields, Phys. Rev. Appl. 11, 024039 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Brataas, G

    A. Brataas, G. Bauer, and P. Kelly, Non-collinear mag- netoelectronics, Phys. Rep. 427, 157 (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    Łazarski, W

    S. Łazarski, W. Skowroński, J. Kanak, L. Karwacki, S. Ziętek, K. Grochot, T. Stobiecki, and F. Sto- biecki, Field-free spin-orbit-torque switching in Co/Pt/Co multilayer with mixed magnetic anisotropies, Phys. Rev. Appl. 12, 014006 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Supple- mental Material contains Refs

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for more details on structural characterizatio n of the samples and on resistivity measurements. Supple- mental Material contains Refs. [ 6, 36, 38]

  32. [40]

    Tserkovnyak, A

    Y. Tserkovnyak, A. Brataas, and G. E. W. Bauer, Spin pumping and magnetization dynamics in metallic multi- layers, Phys. Rev. B 66, 224403 (2002)

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.